UV Filter or Not? You be the judge (Page 14): :?: There was nothing "snarky" about the advice to ignore a thread you don't find interesting. Remember; NO ONE is required to read...

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Rick from NY wrote:

Precisely why I wrote my post asking the moderator... (show quote)

:?:

There was nothing "snarky" about the advice to ignore a thread you don't find interesting. Remember; NO ONE is required to read anything here and if you find the direction of a thread objectionable, then by all means the correct response is to AVOID it, not call for it to be closed.

As to your point... well... the Admin. here can and DOES take action against individuals who violate the terms of agreement regarding personal conduct. If you have a problem with a post or poster, report it. Give your reasons. If a poster or post is in violation, the Administration WILL take action.

Have a good day.

freddayan Loc: Pasadena, California

Viewing on my iMac Retina monitor, I see no difference at all.

blackest Loc: Ireland

It's an interesting result I expected the image to be degraded which is why I picked 1 for the filter and 2 for marginally better IQ ...
On the other hand would an nd filter degrade image quality?
wouldnt the same arguments about degraded IQ apply ...

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Exactly.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

Screamin Scott wrote:

While a bit dated, this is a Polish test of UV filters you might want to peruse...After all, you asked for unbiased proof

http://www.lenstip.com/113.2-article-UV_filters_test_A_few_words_about_UV_radiation.html

If the lens elements disperse most of the UV radiation, I wonder how need there would be for a UV filter. I would think the difference in the thickness of the glass would make the lens much better at eliminating most of the UV light, and the filter would play a very minimal role.

Perhaps a good solution would be to protect the lens while in transit, and remove the filter only when it's time for the shot. These would make that job nearly effortless. They look intriguing, but I've not tried them. Anyone have any opinions or experience with these?

http://www.xumeadapters.com/

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

CHOLLY wrote:

...As to your point... well... the Admin. here can and DOES take action against individuals who violate the terms of agreement regarding personal conduct. If you have a problem with a post or poster, report it. Give your reasons. If a poster or post is in violation, the Administration WILL take action.

Actually Admin doesn't seem to do much to quell inappropriate behavior in my experience. In a controversial thread that got nasty, probably related to post processing or filter use, or Nikon v Canon, or some such silliness, a poster threatened to hurt me by punching me in the nose. It was an idle threat I'm sure, but when I complained to Admin about it their advice was to ignore it and avoid future contact with the person who threatened me. I did not get a warm fuzzy feeling.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Jerry here on UHH uses & swears by them. I got a 67mm one to try out on a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, but just got it & have yet to try it out. Granted, I will be using it with ND & Polarizing filters though, not UV. In transit, I use the lens cap & /or hood.

Shoeless_Photographer wrote:

If the lens elements disperse most of the UV radia... (show quote)

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

Screamin Scott wrote:

Jerry here on UHH uses & swears by them. I got a 67mm one to try out on a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, but just got it & have yet to try it out. Granted, I will be using it with ND & Polarizing filters though, not UV. In transit, I use the lens cap & /or hood.

What I wasn't sure about ... and let me know when you have a chance to try them out ... is: can I use a lens hood with it, or is it one or the other? I love the idea of being able to swap in or out a CPL or ND filter in a few seconds. It's like the difference between the old school screw-on tripod head vs. a quick release.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

blackest wrote:

It's an interesting result I expected the image to be degraded which is why I picked 1 for the filter and 2 for marginally better IQ ...
On the other hand would an nd filter degrade image quality?
wouldnt the same arguments about degraded IQ apply ...

Any glass (or resin) on your lens that was not included in the optical formula is bound to have an effect of some sort on the image. However, with a quality, perfectly flat filter the effect will be negligible. After all, filters have been used routinely with film, particularly black and white, since about day one of photography and countless millions of photographs have been made with them with scarcely a mention of image quality degradation. It really is pretty much a moot point.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

You can't use your lens caps (they sell some to overcome this issue) but I would think you could still use your bayonet style hoods as they are larger than the lens filter . As for screw in type hoods, well maybe the filter adapter could be screwed onto one, but I don't think it would hold very well

Shoeless_Photographer wrote:

What I wasn't sure about ... and let me know when you have a chance to try them out ... is: can I use a lens hood with it, or is it one or the other? I love the idea of being able to swap in or out a CPL or ND filter in a few seconds. It's like the difference between the old school screw-on tripod head vs. a quick release.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

CHOLLY wrote:

I have to correct you again. br br b GOOD /b sc... (show quote)

Just reviewed Canon, Nikon, B&W and Hoya sites regarding their UV/Protective filters. All four sites clearly state one of the uses for these filters is for protection of your lens. As I stated, the filter may cause very minor distortion but in almost all cases is undetectable to the human eye under normal conditions. So until you can show me unbiased testing under controlled conditions, you are free to have your opinion, which is all it is. Not fact.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Screamin Scott wrote:

You can't use your lens caps (they sell some to overcome this issue) but I would think you could still use your bayonet style hoods as they are larger than the lens filter . As for screw in type hoods, well maybe the filter adapter could be screwed onto one, but I don't think it would hold very well

I screw my screw in hood into the filter then I can also put my lens cap inside the hood and onto the filter. Go figure.

blackest Loc: Ireland

revhen wrote:

I screw my screw in hood into the filter then I can also put my lens cap inside the hood and onto the filter. Go figure.

They are referencing xume filter holder/adapter basically a magnetic holder so no screwing needed. The problem might be the weight of the hood may overcome the strength of the magnet. I think it adapts your existing filters.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

Screamin Scott wrote:

You can't use your lens caps (they sell some to overcome this issue) but I would think you could still use your bayonet style hoods as they are larger than the lens filter . As for screw in type hoods, well maybe the filter adapter could be screwed onto one, but I don't think it would hold very well

I could live with that. Thanks for the feedback.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

RWR wrote:

Any glass (or resin) on your lens that was not included in the optical formula is bound to have an effect of some sort on the image. However, with a quality, perfectly flat filter the effect will be negligible. After all, filters have been used routinely with film, particularly black and white, since about day one of photography and countless millions of photographs have been made with them with scarcely a mention of image quality degradation. It really is pretty much a moot point.

Do old film era filters tend to shift color over time? I've got an old skylight / UV filter that seems to create a bit of yellow compared to not having the filter on.