To filter or not to filter
Jan 8, 2015 15:53:30 #
jerrypoller wrote:
Would a quality "clear" filter merely protect the lens glass, or would, even the good ones, tend to degrade IQ (the purpose for upgrading to these f2.8 zooms). Anyone else care to weigh in?
There are several optical bench studies on the internet which demonstrate quality filters cause NO perceptible degradation to image quality. As for clear or UV, all digital sensors are sensitive to UV to some degree, and all to a significant degree at higher elevations. In addition, vegetation can reflect UV to a higher degree than visible light resulting in muted coloration in certain light conditions. As there is no "penalty" for using a UV filter than a clear filter, the advantage however slight lies with the UV filter.
Jan 8, 2015 16:15:29 #
To me the optical quality difference of the image with a good filter is marginal. Are you going to print the image wall size? If not, it doesn't make enough of a difference to me. The one area where you would not want to use a filter, is if you are using back lighting. The extra bit of glass causes havoc with lens flair.
Jan 8, 2015 16:17:33 #
Dngallagher wrote:
Exactly, it is a personal choice, I could see the loss of IQ, and once the filters were off the IQ went up, so filters be gone.
I just took a couple of pictures indoors with just the light coming through the window using my Nikkor 50mm f1.8 D - one with the filter and one without it. Granted, it was only a Zeikos UV Japan made filter, but the colors without it were much richer. I think I'll stick with the lens caps and hoods, and leave the filters
off for now.
Jan 8, 2015 16:29:31 #
jerrypoller wrote:
I just took a couple of pictures indoors with just the light coming through the window using my Nikkor 50mm f1.8 D - one with the filter and one without it. Granted, it was only a Zeikos UV Japan made filter, but the colors without it were much richer. I think I'll stick with the lens caps and hoods, and leave the filters
off for now.
off for now.
I got similar results between filter on and filter off... and when I got rid of my filters noticed sharper images too, so I made my choice and I am sticking with it ;)
Jan 8, 2015 17:48:12 #
Dngallagher wrote:
I got similar results between filter on and filter off... and when I got rid of my filters noticed sharper images too, so I made my choice and I am sticking with it ;)
I'm with you on this one
:thumbup:
Jan 8, 2015 19:33:09 #
gonate
Loc: sacramento,calif
Well I don't use a filter, Quality is much better without one , lens cap only. thank you. I see other shooters agree , I need the best quality, and that's without a filter.
Jan 8, 2015 23:33:23 #
Use a lens hood for protection. In my experience Extra glass no matter how good will reduce image quality.
Jack
Jack
Jan 11, 2015 15:39:48 #
I use filters because even with a lens hood on I am really bad with getting scratches on the lenses. I hike a lot and crawl over boulders and I have scratched my filters and they are a lot cheaper to replace than a new lens
Jan 11, 2015 15:42:45 #
Dngallagher wrote:
Don't you mean B+W filters?
I tend to believe that any additional glass causes loss so lens protection for me is a lens hood. Got rid of my "protective" filters a while back and saw a gain in IQ right away.
Granted I probably had cheaper filters.
I tend to believe that any additional glass causes loss so lens protection for me is a lens hood. Got rid of my "protective" filters a while back and saw a gain in IQ right away.
Granted I probably had cheaper filters.
Yes It should have been B+W Just another OOPS
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.