Uv filters

minimace

minimace

Messages
94
Name
Aaron
Edit My Images
No
I always have a UV filter on all the lenses that I have, but these are only cheap ones from 7dayshop.

Just wondering how much a UV filter effects image quality and is it worth spending more on a better quality one?
 
minimace said:
Just wondering how much a UV filter effects image quality and is it worth spending more on a better quality one?
Click to expand...

Lots.

Nope.
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
 
To add to Frank's post, modern digital sensors are equiped with UV filtering on the protective glass that covers them - so no need for a filter in front of the lens. If you use a UV filter for 'protection' - a lens cap when not in use and a lens hood when in use will afford protection and will not degrade the image.
 
minimace said:
Just wondering how much a UV filter effects image quality and is it worth spending more on a better quality one?
Click to expand...
Find out for yourself. Take some pics with and without a filter in place. If you can see any degradation when using the filter ditch it, if you can't spot any degradation leave it where it is.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Find out for yourself. Take some pics with and without a filter in place. If you can see any degradation when using the filter ditch it, if you can't spot any degradation leave it where it is.
Click to expand...

Will give this a try at the weekend, but don't like leaving my lenses with no filter, would hate to get a scratch on one of the lenses!
 
i ditched my UV as for 99% of outdoor shots im using a CPL filter anyway and the rare occasions its not used the lens hood offers a little protection ( though they can quite easily come off if they are the clip rather than screw type hoods ) Still a decent B&W UV will only set you back about £30 .. small fry in comarison to say the cost of a piece of quality L glass ( or equivalent )
 
minimace said:
Will give this a try at the weekend, but don't like leaving my lenses with no filter, would hate to get a scratch on one of the lenses!
Click to expand...

Don't look for any reduction in sharpness, because you probably won't see any. That only happens with longer lenses that magnify any imperfections in the filter. But shoot into the light, with some bright reflections, a sunset or a night scene with street lights. Then you'll see flare, loss of contrast, maybe some coloured spots and ghost images.

Use a protection filter when your lens actually needs protecting, eg sea spay. Otherwise not. A lens hood offers very good protection, and can only make your pictures better.
 
Don't use filters in nocturnal photography ........... It ruins it
 
Thanks for the advice, I will have a play and try with and without, how about polarised filters? Is it a case of polarised is polarised? I use a cpl filter to photograph fish in water, as it takes the glare off the water, would a good quality cpl take more glare from off the water than a cheap one?
 
Last edited:
What is you're budget ?

The Lee landscape CPL is cracking
 
Mark twiglet said:
What is you're budget ?

The Lee landscape CPL is cracking
Click to expand...

would a better quality one take more glare from the surface of the water? it's rare to find big carp close in, in a area where they can be photographed, so if a expensive filter would make the shots alot better I would be willing to pay for it!
 
minimace said:
would a better quality one take more glare from the surface of the water? it's rare to find big carp close in, in a area where they can be photographed, so if a expensive filter would make the shots alot better I would be willing to pay for it!
Click to expand...

No, an expensive polariser will have no better polarising effect than a cheap one. Quite likely some other benefits, particularly a multi-coated version.

The key to using a polariser is to know your angles - 90 degrees to the sun for blue skies, and between 30-40 degrees to the surface for reflections. Get that right and reflection will disappear completely, get it wrong and the filter will have zero effect. You're some way above optimum in your carp example.
 
Spy said:
It looks like the Hoya Pro-1 Digital UV Filter came out on top !
Click to expand...

However, even that filter has problems on a 100-400 MkI

No Filter | Hoya | Cheap NoName

Filter%20Comparison%20100-400.jpg
 
Don't use them, they should have been thrown away and destroyed to extinction years ago. However, shops still sell them due to the huge markup.

Chuck them away, use hoods. This offers protection and improved contrast (stops stray light glancing across the front element) and lens caps.

You won't scratch the front element, they're made of very hard glass.
 
Last edited:
What about the sigma WR protector filters? Are these any good or waste of money as well?

Non UV ones of course
 
Wouldn't waste your money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top