yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

Yep! 🫤👍

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I agree- I took my blood pressure meds this morning and so far- good readings on th old sphygmomanometer are good. I keep the B.P. gauge next to my exposure meters in the equipment drawer!

Lots of fols don't remember the history of filters. In the FILM era, filters were a necessity- especially in professional work. Most professional transparency films come with a recommended filter pack- just in order to obtain normal color- no special effects. I had tons of filters just for color conversion and correction. There were highly specialized filters for shooting color material under fluorescent light and other sources with discontinuous spectrums. Long exposures caused reciprocity law failure and color shifts which require more g filtration. Even in black-and-white work, filters were needed to render panchromatily correct tonality and effect tonal separation in certain colored objects.T Yellow, Orange, and Red filters were used to render skyscapes.

All right, I do not want to write a thesis on old filters but my point is, we shot with lots of differe filters, filter packs of multiple gels, polarizers, NDs, IR specialized filter filters, and more. Regardless of all the extra glass and gels, we produce razor-sharp images, photo murals, life-size portraits, top-quality large-format transparencies for reproduction, realistic art reproductions, detail macro shots, and even photomicrographs with filters in the light path. None of this is nostalgia- it is old-school history about methodologies that worked.

So, nowadays we have white balance control in-camera in post-processing so color correction and conversion filter languish away in the drawer. We do need to deal with reciprocity law failure, some of us still use a few filters to alter tonal relationships in monochrome but for the most part, fols are arguing over nothing! Peope on this form use a CPL filter, a few ND, and perhaps a clear filter. No big deal!

The same problem exists with flash- after millenniums of successful flash usage. in some circles, it is looked down upon. folks don't know the history and the potential. They don't bother to learn how to use it effectively and spend their time instead, talking negatively about it.

I am not an optical engineer or scientist, but the degree of misinformation and absolute inane conjecture amazes me. I can't relate to the notion that lens coating can resist serious damage.

Neither anI I a psychologist or a psychiatrist so I will never understand the attitude of "my way or the highway- and if you disagree with me, YOU are stupid"!

When I write here, I do not take the attitude that I know it all. All I can do is relate to others what I have found practical and successful and what I have not found as such. I hope it helps!

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

THIS has been an incredibly GREAT review !!
Thank you ALL for your comments and experience.
Yes - I look for a UV filter primarily for lens protection - but some UV blocking is a plus.
Hesitant to drop the Big Bux on a B+W filter - I went up a notch on Amazon from Vivitar and tried a NiSi filter
18 Layer coating with Nano on both sides. 72mm for my lens.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BM7BS3VR
This thing is pristine - at a fraction of the B+W cost. The Vivitar Trash went back to Amzon today.
I see NO significant difference between the No Filter and With Filter images at 600mm cropped.
While I do appreciate B+W quality (I have several from years past) - if there is no visible difference at 1/3 the cost?
-
If this had not produced the stellar results below - B+W would have been my next option.

No Filter


NiSi 72mm UV filter

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Actually, real photographers do use UV filters, but only above 5000' or more in altitude and certain industrial and commercial situations (high UV from welding, UV lasers, etc.). Yes, the newer digital sensors are much more "dead" as far as sensing UV.

Chappy1101 Loc: Glenview, IL

I find this whole topic somewhat redeeming. Had similar experience a couple years ago with a 95 mm Tiffany UV filter I bought for a Nikon 200-500mm. Also thought IQ too soft. Tried various micro calibration adjustments, etc. Then using $20 bill at about 20’ distance, zoomed to 500mm, discovered huge improvement by simply removing that costly filter. Tiffen did not dispute, and sent me a replacement filter (mine was out of warranty). Yes, I am an old film photographer and have always used a filter on all my lenses - no longer doing that!

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

Wait.... what is sharp in either one of those images?? All I see is a blurry image X2..
....and, how did you get the new filter so fast? Wasn't your initial post from this morning? I'm confused.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This is an interesting result. It also pretty much illustrates some of the folly of what we have been discussing. Before I mention a couple of considerations, let me reiterate my belief that you should do what makes you feel comfortable.

With that in mind, consider first that Tiffen filters, while they have been around for a very long time, are not a choice that routinely comes up when "good" filters are listed. I've not bought any of their offerings in recent years, so cannot speak personally about them, but that may be part of what is going on. Also...a number of filter purveyors offer a number of "grades" of filters. Bargain grade options usually present very different design and performance oarameters than come with premium products by the same provide.

Second, the 200-500mm lens is a specialty lens. Many parameters separate it from just about every other lens in your kit. Physical size, element size, construction type (perhaps), and optical grade (perhaps). Is it valid to generalize an observation made with this lens to all of your other equipment?

Third, your experiment is based on a quite extreme usage case for your 200-500mm lens at 500mm. I would be much more interested in results of a similar experment at a more typical subject distance...more like 100 feet, 300 feet, and infinity (or close), especially before making a general decision affecting usage of all my lenses.

As a photographer, I'm aware that we all need to make decisions about how we do the procedural parts of our craft. But as a scientist and particularly as an engineer I am convinced that we need to make those decisions in the most valid ways.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Initial post was at 4 PM yesterday. I'd already decided to return the Vivitar filter and had ordered the NiSi filter well before my initial post with 1 hour to spare for a free overnight delivery from Amazon. To my amazement, it was there at 8 AM this morning (yes - we have an Amazon distribution center less than 12 miles away)!!
I think the 1:1 crops posted today (11 July 2023 at 8:40 PM) are both pretty dang sharp compared to the one with the Vivitar filter posted at about 4 PM yesterday (do look at the fine detail in the vertical wood grain - not the somewhat fuzzy roman numerals).
I did try to upload a zoomed in version at 400% - but it was downsized by UHH
Right click this second image, save as to your desktop, open it and zoom - you can see the individual pixels.
I resized the image at 400% - but the bicubic resizing smoothed the pixelation caused by the sensor limits.

100% 1:1


400% 4:1


400% 4:1 expanded

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Duplicate Deleted

Chappy1101 Loc: Glenview, IL

Thanks for comments. Agree on your validity point. I did not mean to conclude that using a filter necessarily brings with it impaired IQ. But I certainly have reconsidered my practice of using them for physical protection, especially when with the sunshade in place.

And I did not of course explain my entire process. Suffice to say that the 200-500mm issue did not surface from a 20’ experiment on a $20 bill. The soft focus with that lens was apparent from many and varied real shooting situations at varied lighting and focal lengths.

Also, carefully checked 24-200mm Z, 105mm Macro, and 50mm f1.4-all with Tiffen UVs. No issues on any of them with focus or on/off filters. Clearly I experienced a single filter defect on the 95mm UV (btw, did not go to the trouble of rechecking with the replacement filter from Tiffen; just put it on the “shelf”).

The simple empirical $20 bill check of filter on/off, came only after several sessions of meticulous focus calibrations on standardized and carefully measured target sheets. Much ado about very little. Sometimes when in the forest, we can fail to see the trees.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The "badness" of protective filters is exacerbated by longer focal lengths .......I cannot tell you exactly why - but that is my experienced observation.

anotherview Loc: California

Good morning. I'd add Hoya and Tiffen as makers of worthy filters.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

Thank you.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

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!

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

I took your two images and loaded them into layers in Photoshop and aligned them. There was a slight tilt of one frame compared to the other so that left some selvage on the edges and I cropped it off so the following examples are very slightly smaller.

First I just subtracted one layer from the other. That gave me what looked like a black frame because the differences are very small. To see the differences I used a levels adjustment layer and set the white point to 2 (as low as it would go). That gave me the first image below. What you see is basically the noise in the image.

Next I took the two aligned layers and produced an animated gif with a 1/2 second duration on each frame. I placed a red dot on the image with the filter so you can tell which is which. I don't see any significant action in the gif so there is no significant difference between the two images. I did not correct a slight brightness difference.

Images subtracted


Blink test -- Red dot is the image with the filter.