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 <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
Jul 12, 2023 13:37:33   #
Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
 
DirtFarmer wrote:
I took your two images and loaded them into layers in Photoshop and aligned them.
Next I took the two aligned layers and produced an animated gif with a 1/2 second duration on each frame.
I don't see any significant action in the gif so there is no significant difference between the two images.
Really Cool GIF . It seems to confirm my impression of the NiSi filter as a keeper.

Reply
Jul 12, 2023 14:12:51   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
Did the camera come with the original lens hood?

If so, use it!

If you didn't get the hood with the camera, track one down and buy it. A hood will do a better job protecting a lens than some thin piece of glass ever could. A hood will also help protect the filter. Plus a lens hood can actually enhance your images, where that filter won't.

It's kind of funny to spend many hundreds of dollars on a camera and/or lens and then balk at spending more than $20 on a filter that will directly effect every image ever made with that camera and lens!

Reply
Jul 12, 2023 15:50:06   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
Merlin1300 wrote:
Really Cool GIF . It seems to confirm my impression of the NiSi filter as a keeper.


As far as the selection of images goes for sharpness measurements, those images are not all that great. The best indication of sharpness is the grain in the wood. The numbers have indistinct edges.

I took the filter image and converted it into a numeric array, then selected a line of pixels. The selection is seen as a red line about 1/3 of the way up from the bottom of the image.



A plot of the luminance shows the fine structure in the wood grain and the broad edges on the numbers. The wood grain shows excursions covering only a few pixels (sharp) while the broad white areas have edges that take lots of pixels to form an edge (not sharp).


Reply
 
 
Jul 12, 2023 16:10:19   #
Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
 
amfoto1 wrote:
Did the camera come with the original lens hood?
Of Course, and use it I will - along with the NiSi filter.
amfoto1 wrote:
A hood will do a better job protecting a lens than some thin piece of glass ever could. A hood will also help protect the filter.
But the hood / filter combo should work even better.
amfoto1 wrote:
It's kind of funny to spend many hundreds of dollars on a camera and/or lens and then balk at spending more than $20 on a filter
Even sillier to spend $70 - 100 on a name brand when a $30 filter works very well. (the $10 Vivitar certainly Did NOT)

Reply
Jul 12, 2023 16:16:10   #
Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
 
DirtFarmer wrote:
As far as the selection of images goes for sharpness measurements, those images are not all that great.
The best indication of sharpness is the grain in the wood. The numbers have indistinct edges.
Correct. The lens/filter combo appropriately renders the sharpness of the wood grain, so if the numbers WERE sharp, no reason they wouldn't show up as sharp as well. In fact, the edges of the Roman Numerals and the square white 'dots' for the minutes Really Are Fuzzy, as your analysis shows - which is not the fault of the lens & filter, rather it is due to the inexpensive manner in which the clock face was produced.

Reply
Jul 12, 2023 17:42:24   #
brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL
 
Filters for digital add no value for lens hood provides sufficient protection

Reply
Jul 12, 2023 20:55:41   #
rwoodvira
 
[quote=Merlin1300

I like Breakthrough filters. Expensive but really good.

Reply
 
 
Jul 12, 2023 22:37:06   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Good evening. Thanks for your extended, knowledgeable discussion of camera filters. I use name-brand UV filters and circular polarizer filters, after reading about them.

You allude to the protection of lenses by using filters. Three times now, conditions have resulted in busted UV filters but with no damage at all to the lens face.
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Re: Tiffen

Back to the future? Way n back in the 1960s when Tiffin (Oprical) Compam was in Roslyn Heights Long Island (N.Y.) they were known for an excellent line of filters that were preferred by many professional cinematographers. They also had a line that was targeted and marketed to professionals and advanced amateur photographers that were somewhat superior to their consumer products.

In the Army, I encountered their product again. They produced very high-quality areal photography filers made to conform to military specifications. I remember the markings on the rims with the Mil. Spec. Number and manufacturer's name and code- "Tiffen". They were made for the 10x10 and 8X8 k-Series areal cameras. We use the in conjunction wit specially spooled Aero -Ektachrome and those transparencies were sharp as surgical knives! The other supplier was Bausch and Lomb- the Tiffen products were better!

In the 1980s I purchased 4 Tiffen Seris IX filers for my 8x10 view camera lenses - some for converting tungstin balanced film to fr daylight and a couple of (FLD and FLB) filter for fluorescent illumination. Tack sharp- no distortion or loss of IQ!

Unlike many of my cohorts on this forum, I do not closely follow the manufacturers and distributors of photographic products. It seems that every day some "umbrella company" has absorbed my favorite brands and products. In the olden days, if I had an issue with any kind of professional gear, I could CALL the company and speak to a knowledgeable service rep or an actual engineer. Most issues were immediately resolved with a phone conversation. Nowadays, it's like reaching the C.I.A. or perhaps the K.G.B. It's like their telephone number are top-secret. You need to file a "complaint" online and half the time you find that your gear is considered at its "end of life" and is no longer serviced- even if you are willing to pay! If a phone number is published, you are connecting to "voice-mail-hell!

So, Tiffen is no longer in beautiful Nasseau County and has moved to Calafornia. They seem to distribute some great gear for cinematography and video Lowell lights, Steadicam, and some decent tripods. Filters- who knows? They still market them and have an impressive website. My guess is they are no longer produced domestically and of course, outsourced to somewhere in Asia. That can be good or bad!

Meanwhile, back here at UHH, y'all arguing over a "dead horse" and keep kicking the poor thing! That "test" the OP posted is meaningless to me (sorry about that- nothing personal). It does not prove anything concrete about the lens/filter combination in actual normal use, the test target is not a test target, there's no basc control as to vibration abatement, parallelity, etc, and the is no downloaded image to examine.

As I have previously stated, I am not an optical engineer or technician. Even if I were, I do not have the instrumentation to test lenses and filters under optical bench standards. I do know there are various ways to manufacture filters as to coloration. Some filters are laminated with some sort of colored membrane or gel, others are "dyed in the wool"l, so to speak. All I can recommend is from my own expereince. and encourage folks to apply common sense.

Nowdas, we do not require as many filters as were necessary during the film days. It is sensible to invest in time-honored brands with good reputations among serious users. Personally speaking, I haven't the time or patience to experiment with the so-called economy brands. There may be some good ones in there but I am not about to find out. I stick with B+W, Zeiss, Schneider, Sing-Ray, ad a few of my oldies but goodies from Tiffen without any issues. It makes absolutely no sense to invest in a multi-thousand-dollar lens and place an inferior filter in front of it!

As for protection filters- as they say, in the legal profession, "Govern yourself accordingly"! Only YOU know your own lens maintenance habits-good, bad indifferent, or absolutely terrible. If you work in rugged or hazardous conditions or habitually clean your lenses with a dirty-sweaty T-shirt- go get some filters! If you are OCD about your glass and become near apoplectic if you so much as see a speck of dust anywhere near your lenses and continuously clean them- get some filters! Lately, what with climate change, wildfires, and other forms of nasty air quality, perhaps filters are something you should think about in certain geographic areas.

Come on gang- knock off the filter altercations and argue about more important things like IA and post-processing!
Re: Tiffen br br Back to the future? Way n back ... (show quote)

Reply
Aug 9, 2023 23:30:45   #
Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX
 
Thanks all for your comments and knowledge.
I did conclude that the Vivitar filter was Dreck, but the NiSi filter was very good and a bargain.
So happy I am with the NiSi, and even if there is only a 10% chance it may protect the lens - -
This is on a DSC-RX10M3 - and if the lens is damaged, you're gonna have to replace the whole thing, as the lens is integral to the body and can't be customer replaced. Unlikely it could be repaired by Sony for a reasonable price.
-
So - there you are

Reply
Aug 10, 2023 15:35:12   #
User ID
 
imagemeister wrote:
The "badness" of protective filters is exacerbated by longer focal lengths .......I cannot tell you exactly why - but that is my experienced observation.

Makes sense when you consider that "badness" is primarily any odd variations from perfectly truly flat. Any localized inconsistency in glass density would be a similar problem.

You already know, indirectly, that longer lenses encounter greater effect from that. You already know that from using close up lenses. Longer lenses will use much weaker dioptres than short lenses to accomplish a similar close focus distance. Weaker dioptres have less refractive power.

Any tiny waviness in a filter means more to a longer lens. Any local variations from flat will tend to refract image beams. Compare that to what you already knew about using close up dioptres.

Reply
Aug 10, 2023 15:39:36   #
User ID
 
brentrh wrote:
Filters for digital add no value for lens hood provides sufficient protection

ROTFLMFAO

It has long been the good fortune of most photographers to ignore your opinion.

Reply
 
 
Aug 10, 2023 17:16:23   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
brentrh wrote:
Filters for digital add no value for lens hood provides sufficient protection


Have you tried it? I had a camera with a "smallish" zoom fall from my car's floor to asphalt pavement...about 10 inches. The hood shattered into 3 large pieces and several smaller fragments. Lens hoods are made of very coarse-grained plastic and do not reliably protect lenses from physical damage. And yes, this was an OEM hood, not a cheap aftermarket one.

Filters can't be relied on to protect against lact damage, but they usually do protect against foreign material.

The original argument against UV filters was really simple. They are yellow. Not much, but not zero. I use clear glass filters except in a few places where I still

Reply
Aug 10, 2023 18:22:00   #
User ID
 
larryepage wrote:
Have you tried it? I had a camera with a "smallish" zoom fall from my car's floor to asphalt pavement...about 10 inches. The hood shattered into 3 large pieces and several smaller fragments. Lens hoods are made of very coarse-grained plastic and do not reliably protect lenses from physical damage. And yes, this was an OEM hood, not a cheap aftermarket one.

Filters can't be relied on to protect against lact damage, but they usually do protect against foreign material.

The original argument against UV filters was really simple. They are yellow. Not much, but not zero. I use clear glass filters except in a few places where I still
Have you tried it? I had a camera with a "sma... (show quote)

Ive always liked that UV yellow, much better than the pink Sky 1B.

Reply
Aug 10, 2023 18:56:59   #
BebuLamar
 
If the purpose of the filter is to protect the lens then if you can see any degradation of the image then it's not acceptable.

Reply
Aug 13, 2023 19:40:04   #
Hip Coyote
 
I think you are jumping to a conclusion before you have sufficient facts.

I purchased many a B&H filters from Amazon with no issues. FWIIW, I also have purchased an Amazon Basics filter and actually have it on my go-to everyday carry lens (cant remember why I dont have my usual B&H on it...my crappy work really doesn't matter.). I suspect that you have other technical issues at play...even with a Vivitar filter.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 6 next>
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.