UV Filters (Page 2): ^^^IF that filter was not SPECIFICALLY designed as an integral part of your lens, then it WILL introduce flare and reduce contrast, DECRESING image quality...

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

lighthouse wrote:

CHOLLY, I totally agree with you regarding the laws of physics as they apply to optics - in this universe anyway. Not so sure about in the others.
But that link that I provided shows that even with all of your mad hysterical vehement rantings about the effect of surfaces and optics, that under real world testing, with all the rules of diffraction and refraction and surfaces applying - that it just doesn't matter ..... as long as you use a good quality filter.

^^^IF that filter was not SPECIFICALLY designed as an integral part of your lens, then it WILL introduce flare and reduce contrast, DECRESING image quality, REGARDLESS of how much you may have paid for the filter.

Of course some situations are worse than others, but the image degradation will ALWAYS be there... and since there is ZERO benefit to using a "protective" filter, then that degradation is totally avoidable and SHOULD BE AVOIDED.

Would you take a picture with Saran Wrap over your lens? In effect, that is EXACTLY what people with "protective" and UV filters are doing every single time they use a UV or "protective" filter.

For and TO the SAME effect.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

CHOLLY, you are WRONG.
You keep on saying there is zero benefit, but that's just not true.
You are lieing, denying facts.
Time and time again, we see scores of people, detailing real life cases where the filter has saved their lens.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

No... I am not. And let's try to keep this from getting personal ok? ;)

I am NOT wrong. I AM however, a scientist who get's paid for looking at and analyzing data.

Anecdotes are great, but should NEVER be confused with fact.

EVER.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

CHOLLY wrote:

No... I am not. And let's try to keep this from getting personal ok? ;)

I am NOT wrong. I AM however, a scientist who get's paid for looking at and analyzing data.

Anecdotes are great, but should NEVER be confused with fact.

EVER.

So, every single one of these people are lieing are they?
I am prepared to believe their facts.
I know that filters have sacrificed themselves for my lenses more than once.

If you are so big on analysing data, why are you ignoring the only independant study that I have ever seen on the issue.
It doesn't fit your curve so you are pretending it isn't there.
I have never even seen you comment on it.
You act like it doesn't exist.
You are all noise and no credibility.
If all we have is anecdotes where is your PROOF?

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

When it comes to using filters for protection, I am as protective about my lenses as I'm protective about my eyes. Do I wear safety goggles everyday day to keep my eyes protected at all times, just in case something unexpected happens? No, I certainly don't. I only put on safety goggles in situations where there is high risk for injury to the eyes. The same with UV filters. Treat your lens like you treat your eyes and face, and the risk of damage is low. Yes, there are cases of damaged lenses due to mishap. As there are cases of people losing an eye in an accident. But does that mean that we should all be in the habit of wearing safety goggles from the moment we get out of bed in the morning until we turn out the lights at night? I think one should assess risk in a logical manner and not give in to paranoia.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

I keep a hood on each of my lenses and have never scratched one yet.

dfran Loc: Dallas, Pa

CHOLLY wrote:

BTW, Contrast and Resolution are two related, but different things.

And while it might SEEM like common sense to put something in front of your lens to protect it, remember this; people used to believe that a horse hair in a puddle of water would turn into a snake. THAT was common sense too until people learned the truth. ;)

Are you telling me that a horse hair in a puddle DOESN'T turn into a snake?????? Then tell me this.....where DO snakes come from?
:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?

dfran Loc: Dallas, Pa

CHOLLY wrote:

BTW, Contrast and Resolution are two related, but different things.

And while it might SEEM like common sense to put something in front of your lens to protect it, remember this; people used to believe that a horse hair in a puddle of water would turn into a snake. THAT was common sense too until people learned the truth. ;)

Are you telling me that a horse hair in a puddle DOESN'T TURN INTO A SNAKE??????? Then tell me this.....where do snakes come from???

:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?

rebride

Fuji has stated for their X cameras, "UV filtering is carried out at the camera body (by a sensor)" They only make clear protective filters.
Canon makes UV filters which "allow you to correct for the UV effect to varying degrees."
Nikon seems to only make one UV filter. http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13987/~/using-nikon-filters-with-nikon-dslrs
LensTip did some testing a couple years ago. The filters all affected the spectrum. Not necessarily a bad thing, that is subjective.
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
As for image quality degradation, do some tests yourself and see WhaZz uP.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I'm another who doesn't use a UV filter. I saw a response about using a lens cap, which I do until I'm ready to shoot. But I don't think anyone mentioned a lens hood, which also provides protection for the lens, but also reduces lens flare. I use Nikon Lenses, and most came with a lens hood.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

davidheald1942 wrote:

I've been in photography for over 50 years and
have never broke the front element in any of my
lenses. I never did like putting another piece of
glass on the end of my lenses. I ran some test of
one of my lenses (24mm on 35mm camera)
on some landscapes. UV filters are suppose to
cut out most of the haze in landscapes.
I could never tell any difference with or without
the UV filter.
Just my 2 cents.
ronny

Thats actually good news. I have allways used good 1A or skylight filters as a protector. If it has no effect on IQ its good insurance. I'd rather scratch a $50 filter than a $1000 lens by over cleaning or scratching.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

dfran wrote:

Are you telling me that a horse hair in a puddle DOESN'T turn into a snake?????? Then tell me this.....where DO snakes come from?
:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

mechengvic Loc: SoCalo

lighthouse wrote:

So, every single one of these people are lieing ar... (show quote)

We did a similar hash-out recently on another thread. I agreed with CHOLLY in believing that the physics does in fact support his statements. But upon real world testing, the difference in quality was so small it was imperceptible to the eye. CHOLLY further stated that trained photogs would be able to tell the difference, but no one could. I am sure that laboratory testing would expose the differences but I defy any human eye to do so.

I too have read stories of filters protecting lenses. I have also noticed the worn/scratched coatings on lenses that I left unprotected.

Here are two images taken under highly regulated real-world conditions, one with no filter the other with filter (B+W 58mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M)).

CAN YOU TELL WHICH IS WHICH?

_6090008

(Download)

_6090009

(Download)

PTphoto Loc: Skokie, IL

After posting a similar question on UHH myself, getting some great insights from the responses, and owning both filters and lens shades, as well as testing my camera bare, filtered, shaded and with both on (suspenders and a belt anyone?), this is my conclusion...

Use the lens shade primarily to protect and shade the lens, almost all of the time, with no UV filter.
Use the UV filter only when in a splashy and/or dirty environment, when stuff is flying around that could hit the lens through the shade.

Following this rule, I do have to clean the lens a little more often than when using the UV filter, but I'd have to clean the filter anyway, so not much loss there. Yes the filter protects the lens best, but is another layer (even a high-quality filter can get dirty, smeary, etc.) so use it only when in a situation where you are encountering the need for its extra protection, which is not most of the time.

The shade does a good job of protecting the lens. Best of all, no extra element in the light path. Keep it on most of the time.
Hope this helps...Happy clicking!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

mechengvic wrote:

......
CAN YOU TELL WHICH IS WHICH?

Even though I am firmly on the "use a filter for protection" side, I actually did expect to be able to see a difference.
And I can see a very slight difference in size when lining them up at web page size and flicking between the two images.

I then zoomed in at 100% and lined them up and flicked backwards and forwards between the two, looking at minute details, CA etc. The differences are miniscule (and maybe even imagined) and in some parts one photo looks fractionally (very fractionally) better, and in other parts the other does, but on the whole, I cannot see any difference, let alone tell which one is which.
If I really put my mind to it I could probably work out if the slightly smaller image was the filtered or non-filtered, but as far as quality of the image goes, I am going to say there is no perceptible difference to my eyes, with the images at 100%.

I look forward to someone with either a better screen, or better eyes than me, pointing out the image quality differences.