Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
UV Filters
Page <<first <prev 3 of 9 next> last>>
Jun 20, 2014 01:28:40   #
mechengvic Loc: SoCalo
 
lighthouse wrote:
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.
Even though I am firmly on the "use a filter ... (show quote)


Good eye! You found my experiment's flaw, I must have zoomed the lens in or out just a bit when removing or adding the filter, I won't say which so I won't give it away, but you will also notice the difference in file size, a 0.06 megabyte difference. The point is you basically have to guess because there is no discernable difference. I have a 50" high def TV and I can't tell the difference when I view it on there either.

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 05:41:40   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
For those who are worried about a filter degrading the image, I will repost this test shot I did. Nikon 80-200mm lens at 200mm f8--one side without filter, the other with a bog-standard Kenko skylight filter mounted. Remember that any filter flaws are magnified the longer the focal length, which is why I shot at full extension.

I've changed to greyscale to mask slight color balance differences. Downloaded, you are viewing the files at 100%. Can you tell the difference?

FWIW I am a professional news cameraman and I can attest that filters do absolutely protect the front element of lenses. I replace scratched filters regularly, which is quite a bit cheaper than replacing front lens elements. Of course if you have lots of time to carefully clean your lenses and work in clean environments, then a filter is of less use for protection.


(Download)

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 05:48:47   #
Bamboo Loc: South Carolina
 
dfran wrote:
I have a Canon T3i camera. This is my first digital camera that wasn't a point and shoot. My question, since I'm a total novice, is; what is the purpose of the UV filters that came with the camera. I received one for each lens, and don't know if I should use them or not. I'm leaving for Alaska in 10 days and bought the camera to use for my 3 week adventure. Should I put the UV filters on or are they not needed. Thank you in advance for any advice, it is greatly appreciated.

Don


I don't use UVs only a color polarizer when needed. I do keep the hood on for protection.

Reply
 
 
Jun 20, 2014 05:49:59   #
sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey
 
Well I slipped on some stairs and fell. The filter on my Panasonic LX-3 was broken, but the lens was fine. Chrystler Camera repair in NYC recommends using a filter to protect the lens.
CHOLLY wrote:
I shoot the MAJORITY of the time in a marine environment. Either on the beach, or in the estuaries and marshes of NW Florida.

I agree 100% with the above; UV filters REDUCE image quality and DO NOT offer any REAL protection to the front element of your lenses.

Retailers make a LOT of money selling those useless items. Additionally, people who are serious about photography question their image quality and "upgrade" their cameras to get better images when all they had to do was REMOVE those stupid "protective" and UV filters.

A very good friend of mine owned an independent camera shop for 20 years before selling out to a chain, and HE said UV filters on digital cameras is like putting Breasts on a Bull; they may look good, but they don't do a DANG THANG! :lol:
I shoot the MAJORITY of the time in a marine envir... (show quote)

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 07:01:31   #
HeyYou Loc: SE Michigan
 
Since I can't shoot through my lens cap, I shoot thru my filter.

It is there to protect my expensive glass. I buy the best quality filters, no point in scrimping on a few bucks.

If I am out and about and shooting -- that is exactly when I bump into things , or when others touch my camera with the inevitable fingerprint.

In forty five years of SLR photography, I have never not used a filter.

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 07:14:43   #
Erv Loc: Medina Ohio
 
If you do use them on your lenses. Make sure they are very good quality glass. I never use them. The lens cap is always on and the lens shade too.:)
Erv

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 07:16:58   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
Erv wrote:
If you do use them on your lenses. Make sure they are very good quality glass. I never use them. The lens cap is always on and the lens shade too.:)
Erv


Must make for some very dark photos Erv?

Reply
 
 
Jun 20, 2014 07:17:30   #
alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas
 
UV filters are used to increase your chances for flare.

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 07:18:30   #
ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore
 
Some manufacturers recommend (require?) that their weather/dust sealed lenses use filters to complete the sealing.

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 07:54:51   #
Erv Loc: Medina Ohio
 
Ha Ha!!! Once in a while it does. If I see something and go to take a quick shot.:):)
Erv

lighthouse wrote:
Must make for some very dark photos Erv?

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 08:02:41   #
bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana
 
They are a great way to soften photos or introduce lens flare. In other words, I take careful care of my lenses, and have never scratched or broken the front element of a lens by just using the lens hood. There are many that have been talked into purchasing them by sales people at the photo store that swear by them, but I don't see the purpose of putting another piece of glass between my subject and sensor, especially if it isn't a VERY high end one, with a specific purpose, other than "protection"

Reply
 
 
Jun 20, 2014 08:16:17   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
bkyser wrote:
They are a great way to soften photos or introduce lens flare. In other words, I take careful care of my lenses, and have never scratched or broken the front element of a lens by just using the lens hood. There are many that have been talked into purchasing them by sales people at the photo store that swear by them, but I don't see the purpose of putting another piece of glass between my subject and sensor, especially if it isn't a VERY high end one, with a specific purpose, other than "protection"
They are a great way to soften photos or introduce... (show quote)


Bkyser, CHOLLY, anyone at all,
feel free to take a look at the comparison photos in this thread and tell me which ones have the filters on them and tell me what leads you to decide that.

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 08:22:42   #
HeyYou Loc: SE Michigan
 
Think of it as a condo... mmmm, scratch that thought

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 08:28:47   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
alandg46 wrote:
UV filters are used to increase your chances for flare.


I have checked carefully, shooting directly into bright light sources including the sun, and have yet to see a case where a filter increased flare. If you have any examples please post them.

Reply
Jun 20, 2014 08:30:16   #
boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
 
CHOLLY wrote:
EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion.

It should be noted however, that the LAWS OF PHYSICS (AND OPTICS) are the same, and continue to function... whether YOU believe in/understand them... or not. :roll:


While I am sure you are correct from a pure physics standpoint, and that the difference in IQ with or without a good filter can be measured in a lab, the differenses are so small so as not to be visible to the eye. If filters are such a risk to IQ why is it that no one will deny the proper use of a CPL will enhance a photograph. I don't notice any degradation in IQ or anything else when I have used a CPL or a good clear glass protective filter. I forgot to add that I don,t think that in a hard hit to the front of the filter there will be no damage to the lens,and I use a hood all the time. But I would rather scratch a filter than a lens.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 9 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
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.