To UV Filter, to not UV Filter, That is the question. [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : To UV Filter, to not UV Filter, That is the question.

MissV

16-03-2010, 12:24

chrisgeary

16-03-2010, 12:25

I don't use them, I prefer lens hoods.

MissV

16-03-2010, 12:30

I don't use them, I prefer lens hoods.

One of the group said they always use lens hoods, but always keep the UV filter on also.

F3TT

16-03-2010, 12:33

I'm in the "always have a filter on" camp & they all are UV filters. I prefer to have a filter on as they are easier (IMO) to keep clean.

My UV filter of choice is the Hoya Pro1 and I can't say that I've noticed any quality degradation with the filter on....

Bendihossan

16-03-2010, 12:33

I use lens hoods and UV filters. Hoods stop flare but don't prevent against anyone or anything poking, scratching the front element on the lens. Hoya PRO HMC UV filters are between £20 and £40 on Amazon sold by a seller called CameraKing that cause no loss in sharpness or contrast. Obviously I take the UV filter off if using ND or ND grads. If you get a decent quality UV then it shouldn't affect the image quality to any noticeable affect unless you're pixel peeping at 400% :lol:

F3TT

16-03-2010, 12:35

Oh & I do use hoods as well.....

justinitus

16-03-2010, 12:52

I asked the question "UV or Protector filter?" a few weeks ago, having never used filters before on my lenses.

I did wonder whether it was worth spending £35 on a Hoya Pro1D Protector filter as I always use the lens hood, but bought one anyway hoping it might protect my lens from dust while on holiday.

First evening, left the lens hood in the room as I was going to be using my pop-up flash, went down the stairs, slipped on a wet tile and just caught my lens on the wall.

Scratched the filter but thank goodness it wasn't the lens element :lol:

Am SO glad I bought a filter and no, I cannot see any difference in image quality with it on (even the small scratch doesn't show up)

Arkady

16-03-2010, 16:57

Always have a filter on, always use a lens hood. Even indoors.

Thirty years of smashing my kit into walls, trees, vehicles and other stuff has proved the wisdom of this.

Defiance

16-03-2010, 17:00

I use the Pro-1 UV filter and lens hood and see no degradation of image quality :)

jonoooo125

16-03-2010, 17:03

I use B&W MRC filters on mine, havent seen any difference but i keep the hoods on too

HoppyUK

16-03-2010, 17:40

Peter10d

16-03-2010, 18:00

Usually find after a period of use, all sorts of marks appear on my UV filters, which I find astonishing, as I always try to take care of my equpment. Even though I pay top dollar for the best Hoya available pro series filters, I feel much more comfortable cleaning these, than I would trying to clean a dirty lens, that cost hundreds. How much difference to they make to image quality, well Hoya claim the following with their new Protector filters

http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/pro1d-02.html

'' This is the ultimate in clear filters. It will not affect the color balance or performance of your lenses in the slightest. However, constant use will protect your valued lenses from expensive front element damage which could be caused by dirt, knocks or scratches ''

Yardbent

16-03-2010, 20:57

I've just done a series of comparison shots with a range of filters, from the very best Hoya Pro1 to the cheapest from 7dayshop. I have to tell you that, as I suspected, they range from bad to horrendous.
I'll post them up later. Gotta dash!

just got a 17-70 Sigma here and been searching the web for information on 72mm UV and C-PL filters for it

most impressed with lab tests here for UV..."here (http://lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html)" and C-PL..."here (http://lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html)"

the quality Hoyas in first 3 places for UV but
B+W and Marumi joint first for C-PL

SLRUser

16-03-2010, 21:02

Like justinitus I also purchased the Hoya protector filter. I have taken many test shots with and without and can't see any difference myself.

The reason I use it is because I scratched a fairly new lens not that long ago. Don't know how, but I'd much rather scrach a filter than another lens.

DekHog

16-03-2010, 21:11

I always use a UV and lens hood but never use a lens front cap... speed is of the essence! :D

strobemonkey

16-03-2010, 21:15

I always use hood and use B+W mrc on my 24-70.
Re: Hoya Pro1 vs. B+W Mrc, I did my own test before and the Hoya has slightly degraded image quality whereas I cant see any image degradation with B+W

Bill Roberts

16-03-2010, 21:22

Always have a filter on, always use a lens hood. Even indoors.

Thirty years of smashing my kit into walls, trees, vehicles and other stuff has proved the wisdom of this.

Agreed 100% !

There *is* a difference in quality between using a UV filter and not doing so, but I'll be buggered if I can see it in 99% of the shots I take.

And if I do see it, I can always remove it.

MissV

16-03-2010, 22:34

Thanks for all your answers! Personally I use B+W MRC UV Filters + Lens hoods. Glad to see i'm not in the minority!

Arkady

16-03-2010, 23:16

Agreed 100% !

There *is* a difference in quality between using a UV filter and not doing so, but I'll be buggered if I can see it in 99.9% of the shots I take.

And if I do see it, I can always remove it.

And that's the key: if your work is hyper-critical (copying, forensics etc.)then remove the filter by all means.
But for 99% of the time you'll never be able to tell the difference in a real-world shooting situation.

Patch

17-03-2010, 00:16

I've just done a series of comparison shots with a range of filters, from the very best Hoya Pro1 to the cheapest from 7dayshop. I have to tell you that, as I suspected, they range from bad to horrendous.

I'll post them up later. Gotta dash!

I have a cheapie from 7dayshop [ on my Tamron 70-300 on Nikon D40 ], my reason for getting it was mainly lens glass protection, [ I use a hood also ].
I have`nt used any other filter so would be very interested in seeing the comparison shots you have taken if you do get time to post them, in case there is enough difference for it to be worth me spending out on a better filter :)

Arkady

17-03-2010, 00:20

I've just been trawling the classifieds and have read yet another post from someone who, upon closer inspection has noticed a couple of tiny scratches on the front element 'that do not affect image quality'...
And he still hopes to get upwards of £180 for it...

Better that they'd been on a £30 UV filter and not the front element, eh?

HoppyUK

17-03-2010, 00:22

I've just done a series of comparison shots with a range of filters, from the very best Hoya Pro1 to the cheapest from 7dayshop. I have to tell you that, as I suspected, they range from bad to horrendous.

I'll post them up later. Gotta dash!

Here we go then. This question comes up regularly so I thought I'd do a quick test. Flare and ghost images are the problems with filters, mainly, and even the best ones suffer from it. Sharpness is not usually an issue, though it can be with lower quality filters on long lenses, which magnify any imperfections.

For these photos I simply switched off my screen to give a dark background and moved the desk lamp to point at the camera. Canon 5D2 on a tripod with 17-40L lens, all at f/4, ISO1600, tungsten WB. Shutter speed adjusted to match the filter, ranging from 1/30sec to 30 seconds for the 10-stop ND.

This is quite a tough test, but not at all extreme. If you shoot sunsets, you might get this effect. If you shoot night scenes with bright street lights or car headlights, there's a danger too. In fact, it's happening all the time with every shot you take though of course it's not usually noticeable without comparison shots with and without the filter.

These pictures were taken at f/4 and the effect is reduced at higher f/numbers. That has more to do with the characteristics of this particular lens - they all behave slightly differently, but the problem is always there to some degree.

The bright splodge you see in the centre of the PC screen is a reflection of the lamp, bounced off the surface of the sensor and back again off the rear of the filter. Uncoated filters are worst for this, single-coated filters are better and multi-coated filters really should be pretty good. I was expecting better TBH.

1) No filter. Flare and reflection obvious, but not too bad. Easy winner!

2) Hoya Pro1-Digital UV. This is a very high quality multi-coated UV filter. I'm disappointed it wasn't a bit better than this.

3) 7DayShop ND Grad. Uncoated cheapo, rotated so that the dark area is down the left hand side. Nasty.

4) Tiffen HT 1.2 ND. This is high quality four-stops multicoated ND, from Tiffen's premier HT range, in titanium mount an' all. Ken Rockwell rates them highly. Less reflection than the uncoated filters, but still disappointing. It's a tad green.

5) B+W 3.0 ND. This is the famous ten-stops ND filter and as you might guess from the reflections it produces, it's uncoated. This comparison pic is a fraction under-exposed which makes it look better than it is (it's actually about 10.5 stops ND). Don't point it at the sun and expect perfect images. It also has a slight orange cast.

6) Hoya HD CPL. I think this is the best polariser you can buy, multi-coated top of the range from Hoya. It looks to be the best of the bunch, though far from perfect for almost £100 in 77mm.

1) No filter
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq202/HoppyPhotoBucket/IMG_0424.jpg

2) Hoya Pro-1 UV
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq202/HoppyPhotoBucket/IMG_0425.jpg

3) 7DayShop ND Grad
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq202/HoppyPhotoBucket/IMG_0426.jpg

4) Tiffen HT 1.2 ND
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq202/HoppyPhotoBucket/IMG_0427.jpg

5) B+W 3.0 ND
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq202/HoppyPhotoBucket/IMG_0429.jpg

6) Hoya HD Circ Pol
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq202/HoppyPhotoBucket/IMG_0431.jpg

Arkady

17-03-2010, 00:26

This is the 1% of times we speak about - low lighting conditions with a point source of light in the frame.
How many times do you shine a bright light straight into the lens?

HoppyUK

17-03-2010, 00:44

This is the 1% of times we speak about - low lighting conditions with a point source of light in the frame.
How many times do you shine a bright light straight into the lens?

It's happening all the time Rob. Sunsets and night scenes obviously, but any time you have the sun close to the frame you are asking for trouble.

I did the test because I don't think people realise what can happen, and they believe the sales guff about protecting their precious new investement - the profit margin on filters is huge :eek: If you work in dusty, wet, muddy situations (as you do) then it obviously makes sense. But I don't, and I've not damaged a lens in any way in 40 years (always use a hood though). I keep the UV to hand for my odd trips to the coast, as sea spray is really horrible stuff.

If folks want to fit protection filters then that's fine, but to say that they don't reduce quality as is so often heard, is clearly rubbish, even with the best.

If people are aware of potentially difficult situations, they have a choice.

Yardbent

17-03-2010, 01:08

Better that they'd been on a £30 UV filter and not the front element, eh?

i read that modern sensors already have a filter against UV...??

would it be better then to have a quality plain glass "Protector" - like the Hoya HD Protector - and so not degrade the image [however small] with a lens-mounted UV filter

HoppyUK

17-03-2010, 02:20

i read that modern sensors already have a filter against UV...??

would it be better then to have a quality plain glass "Protector" - like the Hoya HD Protector - and so not degrade the image [however small] with a lens-mounted UV filter

Sensors are filtered for both UV and infrared light. I don't think that it makes any difference if you use a UV filter or one of the plain 'protectors' from that point of view.

You'll still get flare and those sensor reflections, caused by two shiny flat surfaces parallel to eachother, basically acting like two mirrors bouncing light between them.

GarynLea

17-03-2010, 02:43

After ruining a few night shooting sessions due to forgetting to remove the filters and suffering terrible lens flare, I prefer to use hoods now :)

Deckard

17-03-2010, 06:01

Hoods only for me most of the time, UV filter gets fitted only if there's adverse conditions like sea spray or danger of flying grit etc.

chrisgeary

17-03-2010, 06:47

@HoppyUK: Nice one ;)

grum

17-03-2010, 06:54

I was using a UV filter all the time, but had a few gig photos semi ruined by flare from the stage lighting - so I don't bother any more.

Arkady

17-03-2010, 07:56

I think the 'digital protection' filters are a bit of a scam - pay more for fewer coatings...? Hmmm...
I'll just stick with good-quality UV filters...

As Hoppy has pointed out, there are drawbacks and if your shooting-style warrants it then you should put as little between thee lens and the subject as possible if the utmost quality is your objective and the subject demands it.
Unfortunately I've learned the hard way that lenses get damaged even when you're being really careful...

There are situations where I'll take the filters off...at night mostly where point light sources will create ghost reflections.

It's just that for 99% of the time that additional gain will be totally unnoticable to the human eye.

alexkidd

17-03-2010, 08:06

I have filters on but take them off for varying lighting conditions, day to day snapping though i rarely notice a difference :)

woof woof

17-03-2010, 08:18

grum

17-03-2010, 08:33

"It's just that for 99% of the time that additional gain will be totally unnoticable to the human eye."

Yup. Gotta agree with that. I think you can probably use a "protection" filter for decades and never have a significant real world real shot problem.

Think that depends what kind of shooting you do. I have only had my camera a month or two and already had some shots ruined by using a UV filter - it was admittedly a cheapo one.

woof woof

17-03-2010, 08:36

I suppose it depends upon the lens design too. I suppose some lenses are going to be more prone than others because of their design and that if you've got lenses that are less prone you might never see the problem.

Arkady

17-03-2010, 08:38

Think that depends what kind of shooting you do. I have only had my camera a month or two and already had some shots ruined by using a UV filter - it was admittedly a cheapo one.

Which is agreed...
If your bread and butter is gig photography where the stage lights are in your face all night, or shooting light-trails of cars in city centres at night, then a filter will have a noticable and possibly detrimental effect...

No-one is denying that a filter will have an effect, merely that the amount of noticable effect under 99% of shooting situations is negligable...

B3R

17-03-2010, 21:28

This is the 1% of times we speak about - low lighting conditions with a point source of light in the frame.
How many times do you shine a bright light straight into the lens?
It applies to most night shots and some others. At the moment its night 50% of the time.

Also note on most lenses its a lot harder to damage the lens element than a filter even without a hood, although a hood further adds protection from damage and flare.

Also worth noting the more expensive coatings are softer and scratch easier.

Bill Roberts

17-03-2010, 21:36

It applies to most night shots and some others. At the moment its night 50% of the time.

Also note on most lenses its a lot harder to damage the lens element than a filter even without a hood, although a hood further adds protection from damage and flare.

Also worth noting the more expensive coatings are softer and scratch easier.

I'm not totally convinced of that. Even if you're absolutely correct, I'd still rather unscrew a damaged filter, chuck it in the nearest bin and screw on another one, than send the lens away to have a new front element fitted.

And before anyone pipes in with the info that some of the on some lenses the front elements are designed to be "sacrificial" it's still a hell of a lot easier to change a filter.

HoppyUK

17-03-2010, 21:43

For all those folks smashing their lenses into everything, how about a lens cap?

Bill Roberts

17-03-2010, 21:54

Awww come on Hoppy, hard to take a pic through a lens cap! :lol::lol:

TheNissanMan

18-03-2010, 07:11

Awww come on Hoppy, hard to take a pic through a lens cap! :lol::lol:

At least you'ld get consistent results :D:D

Rob_W

18-03-2010, 07:28

I keep one on most of the time but do take it off at night and when shooting into the sun and such...

.

Eddie1

20-03-2010, 08:57

Although image quality may be better if you are not a studio photographer
the filters wl save you a lit of grief in scratched or damged lenses which
inevitabe occur if you are moving about on location etc
imo

alastairb

20-03-2010, 09:06

you have to go some to damage a front element with a lens hood on except on UWA lenses in a normal environment as something has to go a fair way up the end of the hood. in normal environments i just do not get why people would induce flair by having a UV on

621andy

11-07-2010, 06:16

Deleted; entered on wrong page:cuckoo:

POAH

11-07-2010, 09:41

Arkady

11-07-2010, 10:07

...in normal environments i just do not get why people would induce flair by having a UV on

It's a worry...:lol:

Shot straight into the setting sun - note the appalling 'flair' (sic) caused by my Hoya Pro-1 UV filter...lol

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4782665058_40530c2327.jpg

HoppyUK

11-07-2010, 10:25

It's a worry...:lol:

Shot straight into the setting sun - note the appalling 'flair' (sic) caused by my Hoya Pro-1 UV filter...lol

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4782665058_40530c2327.jpg

If you look more closely Rob, you'll see the horse has been lost completely.

Arkady

11-07-2010, 10:29

If you look more closely Rob, you'll see the horse has been lost completely.

Damn...I never noticed - that IS bad...:lol:

B16JUS

11-07-2010, 10:30

ive got cheap uv filters on mainly to protect the lenses rather than show a difference.

J

Janet S

11-07-2010, 10:53

Thirty years of smashing my kit into walls, trees, vehicles and other stuff has proved the wisdom of this.

I didn't realise photography was a contact sport!

Interesting thread. I used to use UV filters all the time, but now only fit them when I'm shooting in adverse weather conditions. Don't quite know why, but I was advised not to use them all the time by someone a lot more experienced than me, so I just took his word for it.

Janet

HoppyUK

11-07-2010, 11:06

I didn't realise photography was a contact sport!

Interesting thread. I used to use UV filters all the time, but now only fit them when I'm shooting in adverse weather conditions. Don't quite know why, but I was advised not to use them all the time by someone a lot more experienced than me, so I just took his word for it.

Janet

Great post Janet! :thumbs:

The difference between my view and Rob's, is that he works in war zones, whereas the greatest danger for most folks is their own sticky fingers ;)

KIPAX

11-07-2010, 11:06

Arkady

11-07-2010, 11:10

Great post Janet! :thumbs:

The difference between my view and Rob's, is that he works in war zones, whereas the greatest danger for most folks is their own sticky fingers ;)

Even more dangerous - last night some of the car-freaks at the "Old-Timer" car meet had a super-soaker fight at about midnight.
I thought they'd all missed, but I found quite a few dried water marks on the filters this morning...you just never know...

Coaster

11-07-2010, 14:06

In over 50 years of photography (50 years as a pro) I've always kept a UV filter on every lens I've ever owned. Damaged a few filters in that time but I've never damaged a lens.

Amp34

11-07-2010, 14:14

I use kenko pro1d's on all my lenses for protection and to keep the lens element clean. I also have hoods for all my lenses so that takes care of any flare issues.

I shoot in clubs a lot and have no flare issues at all.

remember that some of canon L lenses are not fully weather sealed without the use of a filter.

In over 50 years of photography (50 years as a pro) I've always kept a UV filter on every lens I've ever owned. Damaged a few filters in that time but I've never damaged a lens.

Just out of interest how much did all those filters cost you?

If you have 3-4 large filter lenses you're looking to spend £100+ easily on those filters. £100 would easily get most lenses repaired if you managed to destroy your front element*... Add a CPL to the front of your walkaround lens and take it off when indoors or when it's causing a problem and you'll have the same protection for the lens you use most but have the filter doing something useful.

Obviously if you are actually shooting rallies, sandstorms and watersports then it's a little different but for 99% of people the protection/UV filter is not really going to offer any more protection than a lens hood.

*Discounting the fact a lot of the time damage to the front element will also come with damage to the lens itself. There's no point in having a perfect front element if the lens is broken and in need of repairing anyway. Lets face it if you aren't shooting rallies and sandstorms most of the damage will be done through drops and bangs, something a filter isn't going to protect you from.

hollis_f

11-07-2010, 14:32

I used to use them all the time because thats what i was told to do.. BUT if they are such a must for every lens.. how come my five and a half thousand pound lens wont even take a uv filter on the front?

Your expensive lens already has a protective filter on the front of it! The front element of all Canon's big telephotos is designed with a mainly protective role in mind. It's not too expensive (compared to the rest of the lens) and it's fairly easily replaceable.

So does this show that 'protective' filters are a good idea. Well, yes. But only if they're made of thick enough glass to actually protect; the protective element is optically designed to minimise degradation of image quality; they don't make the protective element with flat, reflective, surfaces that cause the ghosting, flare and loss of contrast that all flat filters will produce.

born-shooter

09-07-2011, 00:49

I use a Hoya on my canon ef 70-200 2.8 l is usm mk2 no way I'm risking the front element getting damaged I've just purchased a ef 24-70 2.8 usm also waiting on my b&w filter coming before I go outdoors just not worth the risk

neil_g

09-07-2011, 07:01

holy 1 year dredge batman

tubby

09-07-2011, 14:20

Seems to be a bit of a religious topic after much discussion with some friends.

Do you have a UV filter on your lens/es? Do you think even if you get a good (say B+W MRC) it's going to decrease the quality of picture? Or is it worth it for that extra bit of 'protection'?

Be quite nice to hear some thoughts.

YES i have uv filters on all my lenses for protection only. i would rather replace a filter for £30.00 than several hundred for a lens. i also like using graduated filters when in a sunny situation, you can get a nice sky and foreground. tubby.

Oggy

09-07-2011, 21:22

holy 1 year dredge batman

...as if he needs to go back that far to find this topic. :shake:

hollis_f

09-07-2011, 22:19

...as if he needs to go back that far to find this topic. :shake:

OMG. Imagine the carnage if he goes back and resurrects every single UV/protective filter thread! It could crash the whole Interwebs.

Oggy

10-07-2011, 20:42

...which at times strikes me as no bad thing.