Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
How Much Blur from a UV Filter is Acceptable ??
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
Jul 10, 2023 21:17:58   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
High-quality optical glass filters should not cases appreciable "blur". "Optically" speaking, image degradation due to filter usage is caused by defects in the glass, poorly crafted filters, damaged, dirty or delaminated filters, or uncoated filters causing excessive flare.

Anything, even the finest filters, that you place in the light path, technically, can cause some aberration or defect, however, it may be so infinitesimal that it can only be detected by special instrumentation.

If you purchase B+W, Zeiss, or Schneider filters or some of the other time-honored brands, you will not experience "blurr" issues.

Actual blur is usually caused by subject or camer movement at slower shutter speeds, a defective focusing system, or improper focusing technique.

This is an old tired debate. If you feel that a filter will degrade your images- don't use any. If your work is going to be subject to a great deal of enlargement in its eventual display, maybe that might be a good strategy. If you are workig in hazardous conditions such as salt water spray, industrial pollution, airborne particles, steamy kithes with splatter, rough terrane. etc, you may want to consider protecting your lens.

The examples posted by the OP show an excessive IQ degradation- that would have to be one messed-up filter! Dollars to donuts- the causes are camera movement, mirror slap, or impractical shutter speed with
inadequate support.

Buy your filter from reliable sources and run your tests under more controlled conditions with a solid tripod, careful focus technique, and a clean spanking new good filter.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 07:25:52   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
That's pretty bad. Totally unacceptable.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 08:04:17   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
Merlin1300 wrote:
I recently received a Sony DSC-RX10 iii which had been very well cared for.
Wanting to preserve its value, I applied a screen protector AND bought a Vivitar UV filter to protect the lens.
I first took a shot (camera full auto) at 600mm across my back yard of a clock on the wall.
I next put the filter on and repeated the shot.
Then I made crops at 100% around the #8 on the clock.
To me - the no-filter image looks sharper than the one with the filter on.
Is this acceptable? Or do I need to up the anty? If so - which filter would you recommend ?
I DID click 'Store Original' (I tried x2) - but it didn't do that
I recently received a Sony DSC-RX10 iii which had ... (show quote)


B&W makes a great quality filter. That said a UV filter usually is a waste of time. I have not used a UV filter since going Pro many many many many years ago.
Personally the only time a UV filter should be used is around salt water spray, close to house fires, and dust and tornado storms.

Reply
 
 
Jul 11, 2023 08:43:01   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Ditto.
Ollieboy wrote:
Get a quality filter. Vivitar is on the bottom end.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 08:46:43   #
NikonZSeriesMike Loc: Naples, FL
 
I use B+W filters exclusively. I’ve always had good experience with them.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 09:15:50   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
How Much Blur from a UV Filter is Acceptable ??

The answer is none. If any filter, not intended to add blur, adds obvious blur to any image the filter should be relegated to the trash bin.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 10:19:49   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
I’ve seen many comments here that a UV filter is not needed for digital photography. I use one just to protect the lens. I’ve seen no distortion.

Reply
 
 
Jul 11, 2023 10:29:17   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
gvarner wrote:
I’ve seen many comments here that a UV filter is not needed for digital photography. I use one just to protect the lens. I’ve seen no distortion.


I use filters for protection on every lens. I prefer to clean the filters rather than the expensive coated front elements. But I use clear filters, not UV or "Skylight" or "Haze" filters, except for a couple of leftovers that haven't been replaced yet. It's not a super-critical difference. Not using cheap filters is important.

And yes, every lens also has a properly installed hood also. But I've demonstrated to myself that they don't provide the level of protection that lore ascribes to them in case of a fall or drop.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 11:26:15   #
Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
 
gvarner wrote:
I’ve seen many comments here that a UV filter is not needed for digital photography. I use one just to protect the lens. I’ve seen no distortion.



I use clear, not UV, but the same reason.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 11:27:10   #
Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
 
larryepage wrote:
I use filters for protection on every lens. I prefer to clean the filters rather than the expensive coated front elements. But I use clear filters, not UV or "Skylight" or "Haze" filters, except for a couple of leftovers that haven't been replaced yet. It's not a super-critical difference. Not using cheap filters is important.

And yes, every lens also has a properly installed hood also. But I've demonstrated to myself that they don't provide the level of protection that lore ascribes to them in case of a fall or drop.
I use filters for protection on every lens. I pref... (show quote)



Agree

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 11:38:58   #
Nicholas J DeSciose
 
Real photographers don’t use UV filters

Reply
 
 
Jul 11, 2023 12:00:10   #
therwol Loc: USA
 
Nicholas J DeSciose wrote:
Real photographers don’t use UV filters


They might if they're still shooting film, especially color transparencies. They do make some difference in outcome.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 12:00:14   #
photoman43
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
I'd put zero into online nonsense that B&H isn't selling authentic B+W filters ....

Cheaper filters are sold used from KEH, but your size need might be harder to find. The older B+W line is F-PRO, what many of my lenses have, particularly the older ones.


I agree with CHG CANON. I have been buying B+W filters from B&H for over 20-25 years.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 13:08:32   #
MJPerini
 
Never base buying decisions on a single test, and make sure your test is a rigorous one.
Use a known focusing target if possible. Tripod and bean bag or dead arm weight on the camera, self timer or electronic cable release. Do the test multiple times until you get repeatable results.
Vivitar products are built for low cost.
You can pretty much tell premium filters by Price. B&W & Heliopan have the best reputation, but other companies make some fine products as well.
A good filter is basically a single element lens built of optical glass, and ground to be plane parallel on two surfaces and multi-coated on two surfaces, with a threaded mount that assures that it mounts perpendicular to the lens axis.

Reply
Jul 11, 2023 13:10:26   #
Burkley Loc: Park City
 
B&W clear filter from B&H or Adorama. Never a quality problem. I generally use them to protect the edges of the lens casing when hiking, not so much the actual glass.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.