Effects of filters

[vizzair]

After reading the forums of whether to use filters or not, I was a bit skeptical about the amount of difference a UV filter could make. I usually leave it on thinking it won't make much difference:shake:

So I decided to take a before and after - what a difference, I'll never use a filter again ( except for my ND's and grads )

here's the before and after shot ( forgive the content, i needed a subject to stay still and the bin 35ft away looked as if it would keep still )

UV filter in place

And without...

Just had an OMG moment when doing this , I thought the Tamron 18-200 was not that good a lens, but the detail marked above is about 1mm wide at 11 mtrs , when I went to measure it the old MK I eyeball had a job finding the mark !
The filter has been ruining my shots.

 

[ian-83]

I know this a very common debate on the forum but how much have you magnified the image by? It's clear to see the filter is degrading the image but when viewing normally would the difference in quality be so noticeable?

 

[Trig's]

Then again which filter was it - was it some top notch or some cheapo from the bay :shrug:

I have a few of Nikons NC filters on my lens's (althou they're NOT UV) & have yet to see anything like this with any images....

 

[vizzair]

its magnified a lot, but I was still amazed at the detail at 11m

And yes, looking at the filter is it an ebay one,
but I've repeated the test with my 7dayshop ND filters and there in a slight degradation in the image quality, but as much as the ebay uv, thats now only going to be used when the camera is in the bag to protect against accidents.

 

[Asha]

As has been said, there has already been other discussions regarding UV filters.....To be honest I hadn't given it much thought until I read about it on here and yes, I also found a margin of deterioration in image quality but not enough for me to do without filters altogether.......i have found myself looking at it realistically in so far if I'm taking for instance a landscape shot out in the middle of nowhere or other location where lens damage is limited then I will likely remove the filter, but if I'm around town shooting street, scenes with sea spray, mud , dirt or as last night, amongst crowds at the carnaval squirting silly string etc all over then I will continue to leave a filter in place on the lens.

 

[Trig's]

Personally I think it boils down to personal preferences & piece of mind.....

Each to our own - as the same goes with the likes of OEM & NON OEM batteries & grips which is another well debated subject on the threads & by god thats caused some arguements and heated debates as well....

 

[HoppyUK]

To OP, just guessing, but were those comparison shots taken towards the long end of the 18-200 lens? Image softening is common at longer focal lengths, as any imperfections in the filter are magnified. They also tend to do strange things with background bokeh.

With wider angle lenses, the loss of sharpness is not nearly so noticeable, if at all, but with lenses of all types you get flare when shooting into the light, and ghost images appearing if bright lights are included against a darker background (sunsets, street scenes, bright specula reflections). Caused by light bouncing off the shiny surface of the sensor, and then reflected back off the rear surface of the filter.

I never have a filter permanently attached, but use one for an effect, eg polariser, or protection when needed, eg sea spray. Otherwise, always a hood for protection.

 

[modchild]

I spent around £200 on a bunch of good quality (Hoya mostly and 1 Tiffen) and had a similar OMG moment. I was on the verge of sending my 3 week old 7D back until I went out for a shoot with my 100-400 L that had had the filter removed. The difference in IQ was amazing so I came home and removed all the UV filters and haven't had a problem since. I could of understood it if I'd been cheap and used bad filters, but these were recommended by Jessops and L.C.E. in Lincoln. Most annoying thing is, I'd bought and sold some lenses with the filters on when if I'd took the filters off first they would probably been better than I thought. I was a newbie then and someone said I should get them so I did, but I've got into it a lot more now, and can spot the pitfalls before I hit them.

 

[realspeed]

Pixel peeping will always show up some sort of discrepency ,so there is no reason in going to those extremes to prove a point.

Lets see a "normal" picture with and without the filter, bet there is not much difference.

Realspeed

 

[ian-83]

Pixel peeping will always show up some sort of discrepency ,so there is no reason in going to those extremes to prove a point.

Lets see a "normal" picture with and without the filter, bet there is not much difference.

Realspeed

This is what I think. I did a limited test by shooting the same object with an without a Hoya UV filter and the difference well I couldn't see it :shrug: