To Use or Not To Use a UV Filter
Jul 25, 2016 06:26:53 #
rmalarz wrote:
I know. This subject has been beaten to death. A few weeks ago someone suggested posting comparison photos. So, here you go. Your turn to guess which was shot with a UV filter and which was not.
I know. Trust me. I know.
Jul 25, 2016 07:08:31 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Use a UV filter if you want to, don't use a UV filter if you don't want to.
Right on I do not use an UV filter on my lense but use a lens hood
Jul 25, 2016 07:40:55 #
Boentgru
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts, USA
I haven't made with/without photos to check, but from my profession in instrumentation, I have found that signals outside my bandwidth of interest are deleterious to the output of the sensor.. They cutback the signal/noise (S/N) ratio to the detriment of the signals I want to record. And they cannot be filtered out of the sensor output to restore that. So, yes, if you're not interested in those colors (frequencies) filter them out before they get in the lens or to the sensor.
Jul 25, 2016 07:50:35 #
Jul 25, 2016 07:51:10 #
rmalarz wrote:
I know. This subject has been beaten to death. A few weeks ago someone suggested posting comparison photos. So, here you go. Your turn to guess which was shot with a UV filter and which was not.
Been there done that. Not interested in repeat.
Jul 25, 2016 08:08:16 #
I have watched some Youtube videos concerning UV filters, one mentioned, that the UV concerns dealt mainly with Film Photography, and Digital images are not really affected to any real degree by UV rays, so the UV filter is only really useful as a Lens glass Protection. TRUE or FALSE.??
Jul 25, 2016 08:49:36 #
Please, please, please, let us NOT discuss this again! Use them if you want or don't. I couldn't care less what you do with a UV filter!
Jul 25, 2016 08:55:53 #
Having had a $2,000 + lens take a tumble into a gravel laden parking lot (Yeah, I know, that could never happen to you), I was overjoyed to see that while my UV filter was shattered, the front glass on my lens wasn't touched. Bottom line: what ever problematic effect a UV filter may have on shots, it's a nonissue for those of us who know that protecting the lens is a good idea. I can always remove the filter if the issue becomes an apparent distraction on final results, but as the responses to this question seem to indicate, not many of us can point out a discernible difference.
Jul 25, 2016 09:05:32 #
rmalarz wrote:
I know. This subject has been beaten to death. A few weeks ago someone suggested posting comparison photos. So, here you go. Your turn to guess which was shot with a UV filter and which was not.
I'd say #1 was with the filter. Was it a high quality filter such as a top end Hoya, B&W or your average window pane glass?
Jul 25, 2016 09:10:24 #
I have seen the argument that using a UV filter to protect the front glass on your lenses is not all it's cracked up to be because the UV filters aren't that strong and would just break anyway. I've put this link in before but for those of you looking for a good excuse to use a UV filter for protection check Aurora Aperture Inc. http://aurora-aperture.com/ and their new Gorilla Glass filters. Suppose to be available in September. The only question I would have of these is their optical quality, if that holds up I think I will be putting these on some of my bigger lenses.
Jul 25, 2016 09:10:38 #
I've never considered the "effects" of a UV filter...as long as it was clean and protecting my lens!!! I hate using hoods too...just another piece of plastic you don't want to have to carry around, that gets in the way of shooting until you lose it and is essentially unnecessary if you are paying attention to what you are doing (pro sports shooters excepted).
Jul 25, 2016 09:22:53 #
People get too "hung up" on protection for the front element. I only use a clear filter in cases of blowing sand or when children may put fingerprints on the front element, otherwise it's a lens hood or lens cap for me. I used to use UV filters back in film days, but not anymore. Lenses are designed by computers and with a set number of air to glass surfaces. When you start adding more, resolution will be affected. It will not be visible in many cases (especially in images online where resolution isn't as critical) but that doesn't mean it isn't there. That said, I have taken images thru double paned windows that are critically sharp when viewed online but suffer some degradation when printed.
Jul 25, 2016 09:57:23 #
The second shot has better detail in the whites. I think the first is with the UV filter. I don't own one. Can't see putting an inferior piece of glass in front of my lenses.
Jul 25, 2016 10:18:10 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
People get too "hung up" on protection for the front element.
Apparently you haven't tripped during a shoot, fell forward to your hands with camera hanging on neck....hands protected my face and chest, Filter shattered but protected front element from any damage. Lens was a Nikon 24-70 2.8.
Jul 25, 2016 10:42:00 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
imagemeister wrote:
I take it this is a JOKE !
Actually, yes it is a joke... even if unintended.
At Internet resolutions and sizes, you're unlikely to see the difference. Those sample images are way too small to offer anything definitive.
Also, a high quality, multi-coated filter is not likely to give any "issues" with a shot such as those in the samples: reasonable lighting conditions and the filter protected from any light directly striking it.
Poorer quality filters can effect image sharpness, amp up chromatic aberration, even interfere with auto focus.
High quality, multi-coated filters generally avoid those types of issues... But even the best can cause or increase veiling and ghost flare effects if strong oblique light strikes them.
They are simple facts:
1. Unlike film, digital imaging does not require UV filtration. It's already built into the camera itself.
2. Lenses are a lot tougher and harder to damage than people think.
3. It's sort of silly to think that a thin piece of glass is going to provide much, if any, "protection". Actually, the opposite can be true. A broken filter can cause damage.
4. Lens caps and lens hoods... most made of "high impact plastic" and bayonet mounted these days... both do a far better job protecting lenses than filters do. Somewhat ironically, if using a filter it's even more important to use the cap and hood, to protect the filter from damage and oblique light!
5. Lens hoods also have potential to improve image quality, might even help metering and autofocus work better... and so long as a hood is matched to a lens and properly attached, cannot possibly have any negative effects on images. The only reason to not use a lens hood is when needing to be so close that it gets in the way. Otherwise, it's just plain laziness to not use one.
6. Anything between the lens and the subject is going to have some effect on every image... be it Schott glass, window glass, a chain-link fence or just plain atmosphere.
7. Fans of "protection" filters will argue to the grave for their use, with no real evidence to support their claims.
8. There is more evidence of the opposite... that filters do little or no good protecting a lens. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
9. It's easy to store filters in your bag and have them handy, ready to use in certain situations such as blowing sand.
10. Damaged lenses can be repaired, sometimes at less or little more than the cost of a quality filter.
11. There are some rare occasions when a UV filter might help reduce visible atmospheric "blue haze" in images.
12. Who cares? It's their images that might be compromised for no good reason... not mine. So I like it when a competitor uses a filter! The cheaper and crappier, the better!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.