UV filters degrade picture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CJS
  • Start date Start date
C

CJS

Messages
997
Edit My Images
Yes
On another sight, I've recently seen the recommendation to remove UV filters from modern DSLR's? Said to degrade the picture quality, manufacturers are incorporating anti UV technology into new digital lenses and sensors, a double dose is detrimental? I tried it and it seemed to work??? but I'm no expert, not sure if I can trust my own judgment???

Anyone got a view . . .

CJS
 
in regards to Stewarts thread, i saw little to no difference at all in the image quality personally, i think it's better off to be safe than sorry in terms of protecting your lens, and even if they build the filter into the lens they will still face the problem of that getting scratched, so people are still going to want to use filters and protectors regardless.

(sorry if that's appaling english, i'm in a rush)
 
The main problem with filters is flare, not sharpness. And certainly, controlling UV has nothing to do with it.

You really shouldn't need a filter for protection in normal use, if you're careful, so why bother? Use a lens hood for that. But when you do need one (salt sea spray for example) then make sure it is the very best multi-coated one you can get.

Richard.
 
HoppyUK said:
You really shouldn't need a filter for protection in normal use, if you're careful, so why bother?
Click to expand...
Because, as we've already seen, having one attached makes little discernible difference.

So why go to the hassle of having to remember to screw one on when you're going into a situation that might need it, when you could just have one on all the time?
 
glitch said:
Because, as we've already seen, having one attached makes little discernible difference.
Click to expand...

But having one does make a lot of idscernable difference. As I have said, that test is invalid. It does not test for flare, and if you shoot into the light, a filter, even a very good one, will often cause real problems. And you don't need to do any comparison shots to see it - the bright coloured spots and shapes in the picture are obvious enough!
 
Yes flare can be a problem, but with a little care it can be avoided. I've had 2 L lenses saved by a filter, which is the only reason I have them on. Yes good ones are expensive, but not as expensive a lens.

It's an insurance policy to prevent scratches and other problems ( dried salt water splashes are a real bitch) so you takes your choice. This isn't covered by insurance. Me I'm leaving them on.
 
"Never achieve consenus on this debate.

Situation is well described here:-

http://www.dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#lens_protection"

I don't know about that. From the link above, this reads like concensus with my previous post ;)

"Light loss and aberrations seldom reach practical levels, but flare's a fatal image flaw [with a UV filter] and a common one at that, especially when the sun's low in the sky near your subject. Why compromise on quality when careful handling, a lens cap or a rigid lens shade provide adequate protection under most shooting conditions?"

But I disagree with Chappers on this point:

"Yes flare can be a problem, but with a little care it can be avoided."

The only way to avoid flare with a filter when shooting into the light, is either to remove it, or recompose and take a completely different photograph.

But I can only agree absolutely with Chappers here: "dried salt water splashes are a real bitch."

I have a couple of expensive UV filters, because you sometimes need them. I have only used one once in recent years, and that was on a trawler where the sea spray was impossible to avoid. My other UV filter, which cost £45, has never been used. It's in my bag, but I hope it stays there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top