imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Some of us, like me, tried to tell you about this ........do keep a good HOOD in place for protection.

Tom M Loc: 77429

Did you get it from China? If so, most likely a fake. I've read that counterfeits have even been sold through Amazon.

splatbass Loc: Honolulu

I bought it from Amazon, but I don't believe it came from China. Could be though. I've had it on there for about year and taken probably a couple of thousand pictures through it without a problem, but in this case the sun was coming through the leaves at just the right angle to cause a problem.

User ID

`



So true. No filter is gonna make the
degree of difference visible in the pix
posted as examples.

.

splatbass Loc: Honolulu

But as I already pointed out, I saw that through the viewfinder. So the filter DID make that degree of difference, since the exposure doesn't matter at that point.

PierreD

Were you using a lens hood with the UV filter? In combination, the hood + CLEAN filter should not produce this fogging effect.... Either this or perhaps you were using a cheapo, Elmer's glue-assembled plastic filter - some filters are of terrible quality and should be avoided.

This is all I can think of...

splatbass Loc: Honolulu

B+W filter and lens hood.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

B+W filters are good, but even they offer different quality filters at different price points. In the size you use, they offer:

- 67mm UV 010 "SC" which has a single coating for $19.99.

- 67m UV 010 "MRC" (might be labelled "F-Pro) which has 8-layer multi-coatings, for $29.95.

- 67mm UV 010 "XS-Pro which uses a slimmer frame, has 16-layer "Nano" multi-coatings, and costs $33.95.

- 67mm UV/IR Cut 486 "MRC", a specialty filter intended for reducing excessive IR light, along with UV, which can cause color shifts or tints and might occur during longer exposures (such as when using neutral density filters). 8-layer multi-coatings, $72.00.

- 67mm Strong UV Absorbing, a specialty filter for use when photographing fluorescing subjects that can cause CA and reduced sharpness in images. Uncoated. $110.

AFAIK, all B+W filters use high quality German Schott glass mounted in brass frames that are resistant to galling and getting stuck on lenses.

The first three listed above are intended for general photography. The single-coated filter probably needs to be used with caution in situations where there is glare may be an issue, might be best only used indoors under controlled lighting conditions. The 8-layer and 16-layer coated filters will be more resistant to flare. The 16-layer "Nano" coatings are also more resistant to oils, water, and scratches, and are more easily cleaned.

I have never heard of fake B+W filters being sold anywhere. News to me! OTOH, I have heard of counterfeit memory cards and batteries.... But with those, it's just a matter of gluing on a label.

I'd am not familiar with the 18-300mm Tamron lens, but one of the problems with extreme range lenses like that is that they are very difficult to shade effectively with a lens hood. Even in your second filter-less image, there's some flare and strong chromatic aberration at the right hand edge of the image, where the leaves are against the bright sky. Those are challenging for any lens, but can be made worse by a filter... even a good one. Also, some lenses just don't work well with filters. I don't know if that's the case with the Tamron... For example, another lens that I know "goes soft" whenever a filter is used on it is the Canon EF 100-400mm IS USM original "push/pull" zoom. Many users of that particular lens who had "protective" filters on theirs from new have been stunned to see how much sharper it is when used without a filter.

Personally I have UV filters (mostly B+W MRC, F-Pro or XS-Pro) for all my lenses that can be fitted with filters (I have two lenses that cannot). Those filters are stored separately and only installed on the lenses when there's an actual need for them (either to reduce haze in a scenic shot or to protect the lens from blowing sand, sea air, etc.) Those are some of my least used accessories. I probably use a Circular Polarizing filter 10X more often than a UV filter. Even so, the majority of the time my lenses are "filter-less". OTOH, I always use a lens hood, while shooting... and a lens cap when storing the lens.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

There is something wrong with the filter for that kind of difference.
Also if it is glare where was your hood?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

This is a single observation and as such is not much value in determining whether a filter degrades an image or not. Since the exposures differ, we can't compare the two shots.

A well-controlled experiment would help in some such determination.

Keen

Camera shop sales folks tried to sell me on that UV filter, to protect the lens, BS. The idea was that if you are careless, and bump your lens against whatever, hard enough to break the lens glass, having a filter on would save the lens. The filter would break, but the lens would not. I said that is what lens caps are for. Also, if you smack the lens hard enough to break the filter, you will probably do so hard enough to also break the lens. Then, too, if you smack the lens hard enough to shatter the filter, but not harm the lens, the broken bits of filter will probably scratch the heck out of the lens. So, the lens is not cracked, but is scratched enough to be useless. What is the point of that?

I prefer to not us a protective filter, and just not be careless enough to bash my lens into things. I have had no problems so far. I am not the sort of impulse shooter who walks around, with an uncapped lens, waiting to shoot whatever catches my eye at the moment. I keep my lens cap on, until I am at a planned shooting site, and in front of my subject. I then take the cap off my lens, shoot what I want, and replace the lens cap. While walking around, I am careful to know where my lens is, and what it is doing. I do not let it, and the camera, swing wildly about on an unattended strap, and bash into whatever is nearest. If my camera, with a lens, is on on a strap, around me neck-rather than in my bag-and I walk around a bit like that, I raise my hand, and hold the camera, or the strap, to prevent wild swinging. It works. My lens has never bashed into anything, and even if it had, the lens cap is on and protective enough. Camera shop sales people hate me.

User ID

You altered both the ISO and the shutter time
between the two shots. You used an SLR. What
you see in in an SLR finder is not real. You saw
some lenses flare that's true. You also saw some
finder system glare.

A filter cannot cause the AMOUNT of degradation
that is in your first shot. Under exposure makes
it worse. With proper exposure the man image
tends to "burn thru" the veiling glare. OTOH with
under exposure the opposite happens.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Here is a shot with a protective filter on.
And I definitely have save lenses from damage by having the filter on them. My OEM hood was shattered and the filter smashed. The lens was saved and still working after 12 years flawlessly.
I see no flare whatsoever or any loss of detail in any way.
Prove that a filter will not protect your lens by your ACTUAL experience not by bitter rumors from the internet.

(Download)

ialvarez50

I my classes I am always reminding my students to use only 1 filter with their digital camera, the polarizer. And also, not just any filter. Most of them have nice cameras with excellent lenses and I always recommend B&W filters. It makes no sense heaving a $1600.00 lense and a piece of plastic that cost $9.95. Great lenses deserve great filters.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

I agree here. B+W is a good brand, but the specific model is of huge importance as some are very flare resistant, and others not so much.

Splatbass, it would be very useful to know which specific model filter you used.