I've always used the cheapo filters on my lens as protection, but am noticing a wide range of opinions on whether or not one's really useful or not. What are your thoughts?
To filter or not?
- Thread starter Syringer
- Start date
colonelciller
Senior member
- Sep 29, 2012
- 915
- 0
- 0
how about a Tiffen UV filter as protection then? Good quality lens protector.
they are very useful for protecting your lens, and you're not going to notice the image degradation that they cause. Anybody talking about noticeable image degradation is venturing into slightly delusional territory of the flavor not dissimilar to that which "audiophiles" with $5000 cables occupy.
cameras on straps have a tendency to swing around and hit things... wiping dust off the lens (another case where I'd rather wipe a filter than expensive glass).
they are very useful for protecting your lens, and you're not going to notice the image degradation that they cause. Anybody talking about noticeable image degradation is venturing into slightly delusional territory of the flavor not dissimilar to that which "audiophiles" with $5000 cables occupy.
cameras on straps have a tendency to swing around and hit things... wiping dust off the lens (another case where I'd rather wipe a filter than expensive glass).
Filters for protection are a pretty polarizing topic. I personally use filters but would really prefer not to even though it's difficult for me to take that risk. Here's what I've noticed are the pros and cons of using a filter:
Pros:
-Protection for your lens from random scratches
-You can be a lot less careful when cleaning a filter than cleaning a lens surface because if you scratch it up, just get another one. No lens cleaning solution on the field? Go ahead and dry clean it if you really need to.
Cons:
-Additional lens flare from adding a layer of glass plus an air gap in front of the lens.
-Reduced light/image quality since you are adding another layer of glass in front of the lens.
-Dust and dirt between the filter and the lens element must be cleaned out by unscrewing the filter. You basically end up with 3 lens surfaces to be cleaned instead of just one.
While it's true that a lens hood will pretty much protect from any accidental damage that a hoodless lens with a filter would, the lens hood will not protect from poor cleaning habits or unideal situations like not having any lens cleaning solution on you on the field. This is the reason why I still have filters on my lenses - so I don't have to worry as much about my cleaning habits when on location.
Pros:
-Protection for your lens from random scratches
-You can be a lot less careful when cleaning a filter than cleaning a lens surface because if you scratch it up, just get another one. No lens cleaning solution on the field? Go ahead and dry clean it if you really need to.
Cons:
-Additional lens flare from adding a layer of glass plus an air gap in front of the lens.
-Reduced light/image quality since you are adding another layer of glass in front of the lens.
-Dust and dirt between the filter and the lens element must be cleaned out by unscrewing the filter. You basically end up with 3 lens surfaces to be cleaned instead of just one.
While it's true that a lens hood will pretty much protect from any accidental damage that a hoodless lens with a filter would, the lens hood will not protect from poor cleaning habits or unideal situations like not having any lens cleaning solution on you on the field. This is the reason why I still have filters on my lenses - so I don't have to worry as much about my cleaning habits when on location.
fralexandr
Platinum Member
the problem is that cheapo uv filters can effect image quality.
the cheaper tiffen's (particularly the haze-1 or 2) can alter colors by as much as 15-20%. Likewise, there can be a reduction of light transmission which can wash out images and probably necessitate a slightly longer shutter to achieve similar images.
http://www.lenstip.com/113.24-article-UV_filters_test_Tiffen_72mm_UV.html
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/124056-impact-cheap-uv-filter.html
the cheaper tiffen's (particularly the haze-1 or 2) can alter colors by as much as 15-20%. Likewise, there can be a reduction of light transmission which can wash out images and probably necessitate a slightly longer shutter to achieve similar images.
http://www.lenstip.com/113.24-article-UV_filters_test_Tiffen_72mm_UV.html
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/124056-impact-cheap-uv-filter.html
Last edited:
So what exactly is the difference between the $15 Tiffen filter and the $100 B+W filter?
Basically I want to get one for my Tamron SP 24-70mm which is going to be the most I've ever spent on a lens so I want to make sure it at least has good protection.
Basically I want to get one for my Tamron SP 24-70mm which is going to be the most I've ever spent on a lens so I want to make sure it at least has good protection.
fralexandr
Platinum Member
the lenstip link has a pretty thorough review.
B+W and other expensive filters offer higher light transmission and reduced effects from flare.
There's also some effect on sharpness (probably most noticeable when using sharper lenses than the standard kit lenses and cheap zooms)
marumi and hoya make some nice budget filters, if you're considering getting some.
http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html
in fact, the top 4 performance/price are hoya
my most expensive lens actually doesn't have a filter :S (tamron 10-24)
i only keep filters on my beater/outdoor lenses hah (quantaray 70-300/pentax 18-55)
-----
this seems like an interesting filter
http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging...s=hoya+82mm+uv
I wonder how closely it can compare to the hoya pro1 optically :S (though there'll probably be build quality/quality control issues)
edit: I would think it's probably worth it over the tiffen due to the multicoating.
otherwise, you can pick up a hoya 82mm for ~$45
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...seller=&sr=1-1
whether or not it's worth the 3x cost over the tiffen for slightly noticeable/somewhat better performance is up to you though
.
-----
also, fyi multicoating can make filters/lenses harder to clean (though it provides many benefits http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lenstech.htm#coating)
i suppose another way to look at this is having multicoating(which largely explains why the cheaper tiffens don't do well), since basically the only things you're paying for are the glass (and how it's shaped/formed), the coating, and a way to mount it to the lens.
the B+W without MRC (though still single coated) and marumi without MC both do significantly worse than the multicoated counterparts, though the glass probably has a small part to play here as well.
it's kind of amazing how high quality the cheaper glass can be today, in comparison to how it's been in the past (google's april fools treasure map street view filter was funny).
B+W and other expensive filters offer higher light transmission and reduced effects from flare.
There's also some effect on sharpness (probably most noticeable when using sharper lenses than the standard kit lenses and cheap zooms)
marumi and hoya make some nice budget filters, if you're considering getting some.
http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html
in fact, the top 4 performance/price are hoya
my most expensive lens actually doesn't have a filter :S (tamron 10-24)
i only keep filters on my beater/outdoor lenses hah (quantaray 70-300/pentax 18-55)
-----
this seems like an interesting filter
http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging...s=hoya+82mm+uv
I wonder how closely it can compare to the hoya pro1 optically :S (though there'll probably be build quality/quality control issues)
edit: I would think it's probably worth it over the tiffen due to the multicoating.
otherwise, you can pick up a hoya 82mm for ~$45
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...seller=&sr=1-1
whether or not it's worth the 3x cost over the tiffen for slightly noticeable/somewhat better performance is up to you though
.-----
also, fyi multicoating can make filters/lenses harder to clean (though it provides many benefits http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lenstech.htm#coating)
i suppose another way to look at this is having multicoating(which largely explains why the cheaper tiffens don't do well), since basically the only things you're paying for are the glass (and how it's shaped/formed), the coating, and a way to mount it to the lens.
the B+W without MRC (though still single coated) and marumi without MC both do significantly worse than the multicoated counterparts, though the glass probably has a small part to play here as well.
it's kind of amazing how high quality the cheaper glass can be today, in comparison to how it's been in the past (google's april fools treasure map street view filter was funny).
Last edited:
Paladin3
Diamond Member
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,933
- 878
- 126
I kept mid-grade UV filters on all of my lenses when I was shooting professionally. It saved a front element more than once, but I ran around with 2-3 cameras out most of the time, and never used lens caps. I did use lens hoods, though.
The only time I saw image degradation was when the filters were either dirty or just old and scratched, and this was with pro quality zoom and prime lenses.
The big question is why filter? If you need a specific effect then go ahead and use one. If you don't like lens caps or are rough on your gear, then go ahead and get UV filters for each lens. I doubt you will ever see any real difference in the image, unless you buy utter crap filters.
If you carry your camera wrapped in a linen baby diaper, and refuse to shoot under anything less then laboratory clean room conditions, then forget about it.
The only time I saw image degradation was when the filters were either dirty or just old and scratched, and this was with pro quality zoom and prime lenses.
The big question is why filter? If you need a specific effect then go ahead and use one. If you don't like lens caps or are rough on your gear, then go ahead and get UV filters for each lens. I doubt you will ever see any real difference in the image, unless you buy utter crap filters.
If you carry your camera wrapped in a linen baby diaper, and refuse to shoot under anything less then laboratory clean room conditions, then forget about it.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Gintaras
Golden Member
- Dec 28, 2000
- 1,892
- 1
- 71
Not true...
Try to drop lense with filter on and another without filter...
I do use filters...And one day I've noticed a scratch on filter....What if I've notices instead a scratch on a lense?
Difference between $10-20 and $300...
Does UV filters affect picture quality?
Well, then better question themselves if Polarized, ND and all the rest of the filters affect picture quality...shouldn't we?
Why only UV filter is no good but all others are good? What? other filters have no "air gap"(one of most ridiculuos posts - about "air gap")....
And..some say Haze Filter as UV...These are 2 totally different things...
tdawg
Platinum Member
- May 18, 2001
- 2,215
- 6
- 81
There's a big difference between effects/specialty filters and a clear uv filter. People use nd, polarized, tinted, or other special filters precisely to modify the look of an image. UV filters are, for the vast majority of users, not used to modify the look of an image.
Filter can actually do harm if dropped. Broken filter glass hitting the len's glass... scraaaaaatch. With hoods at least they'll take some of the blunt impact themselves.
ND and polarizers are good, anything that changes the color shift don't even bother, you can do that post while retaining the correct image. As for uv filters.... why do they still make those things? LOL
ND and polarizers are good, anything that changes the color shift don't even bother, you can do that post while retaining the correct image. As for uv filters.... why do they still make those things? LOL
Last edited:
Alright Gint, let's talk physics. A ray of light going from one medium to another will experience refraction, assuming it's not completely perpendicular to the uv filter and assuming that the two mediums have different indices of refraction. When you add in a uv filter, you are adding two more instances of refraction to the path it takes for light to go from outside the camera to the sensor (the two instances being the uv filter and the AIR GAP).
On top of that you get light reflected off the TWO surfaces of the uv filter, not to mention the light reflecting back off of the original lens front element back to the uv filter and then back to the lens. Then you have to wonder what happens if the filter isn't 100% parallel to the front element of the lens - that's right, more distortion of the light.
Sure, you might claim that the uv filters are manufactured to be as anti-reflective as possible, but you can't deny that when you hold a uv filter at the right angle that you see light reflecting off it. That light you see being reflected is.... light loss!
Now you might claim that the magnitude of the things I just discussed is small and negligible, but I'd like to see you back up that claim with some numbers. To me, as long as that number is non-zero, then removing a uv filter is one thing that is 100% under my control that I could do to potentially improve the quality of my image. As I had mentioned previously though, the pros of a uv filter do outweigh the cons to me, so I still keep it on most of the time. However, don't claim that adding a uv filter does NOTHING to your images because that is outright wrong.
I do have to give you props, Gint, for posting something in this forum other than your usual useless comment about how there's no instant masterpiece button available and how we should all stop talking about gear on a tech forum.
Gintaras
Golden Member
- Dec 28, 2000
- 1,892
- 1
- 71
Beg to differ. I've had two $1000+ lenses saved by filters.
Once when a projection poked right through the front of the lens, and the second, when the lens fell off my camera (because it wasn't locked properly) and onto the ground, and the metal ring of the lens (and glass) took the brunt of the impact and folded up, but the lens itself was just fine with on minor scratches.
The one time I dropped a lens in a similar fashion without a filter, it bent the barrel and was pretty worthless after that.
To be fair, it won't ALWAYS protect, but it certainly offers a measure of protection.
The primary issue I find with cheap filters (personally) is a loss of contrast in direct sunlight.
When you shoot into the sun with a REALLY good quality coated lens (like you find within good lenses), you will see minimal flare, and minimal contrast loss.
When you use cheap uncoated filters, you can visibly see the loss of contrast. It's pretty amazing the difference in that circumstance.
When you shoot into the sun with a REALLY good quality coated lens (like you find within good lenses), you will see minimal flare, and minimal contrast loss.
When you use cheap uncoated filters, you can visibly see the loss of contrast. It's pretty amazing the difference in that circumstance.
Pretty much not worth it to worry about it. If you are going to be in a particularly dirty environment then go ahead and use an affordable one, but don't use it in general.
1) Filters degrade image quality, period. This might be more or less noticeable depending on the quality of the lens and the quality of the filter. A $100 filter on a $100 lens, you're probably not going to notice the difference. A $100 filter on a $1000 lens, you can probably notice a difference, particularly in certain circumstances (e.g. shooting towards a light source).
2) There is a cost-benefit analysis that you have to do here. If you have a $100 kit lens, obviously it doesn't make sense to buy a $100 filter to protect it. If you have a $1000 lens, maybe it would make sense to buy a $100 filter to protect it.
3) Filters are generally less durable than the front elements on the actual lenses. Things that will scratch a filter (even an expensive one), will not scratch a decent quality lens.
4) For expensive lenses, having the lens serviced and the front element replaced is probably not much more expensive than the kind of filter you would want to buy for it. E.g. all of my Canon "L" lenses (see sig) (all worth $1000, more or less) could have their front elements replaced by Canon for $150 or so. This is about what I would spend on a good filter; except (given #3 above) I would go through 3 filters in the same time that I would go through 1 front element.
Your Tamron 24-70mm will come with a lens hood. This is definitely good protection (better than a filter) for most kinds of physical damage (dropping, etc.). This lens is a good quality optic, and I would say that adding a filter (even an expensive one) will show some degradation, particularly in the right circumstances.
1) Filters degrade image quality, period. This might be more or less noticeable depending on the quality of the lens and the quality of the filter. A $100 filter on a $100 lens, you're probably not going to notice the difference. A $100 filter on a $1000 lens, you can probably notice a difference, particularly in certain circumstances (e.g. shooting towards a light source).
2) There is a cost-benefit analysis that you have to do here. If you have a $100 kit lens, obviously it doesn't make sense to buy a $100 filter to protect it. If you have a $1000 lens, maybe it would make sense to buy a $100 filter to protect it.
3) Filters are generally less durable than the front elements on the actual lenses. Things that will scratch a filter (even an expensive one), will not scratch a decent quality lens.
4) For expensive lenses, having the lens serviced and the front element replaced is probably not much more expensive than the kind of filter you would want to buy for it. E.g. all of my Canon "L" lenses (see sig) (all worth $1000, more or less) could have their front elements replaced by Canon for $150 or so. This is about what I would spend on a good filter; except (given #3 above) I would go through 3 filters in the same time that I would go through 1 front element.
Your Tamron 24-70mm will come with a lens hood. This is definitely good protection (better than a filter) for most kinds of physical damage (dropping, etc.). This lens is a good quality optic, and I would say that adding a filter (even an expensive one) will show some degradation, particularly in the right circumstances.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
I guess the metal ring can protect your lens by absorbing some energy. But the glass of the filter won't. If an impact is enough to damage your front element, it will go right through the thin glass filter anyway. If anything, scratching is more likely because most materials aren't hard enough to scratch glass, but a broken filter might scratch the front element.
After reading about a previous poster's experience with multiple broken filters, I started asking myself why the filter being broken from the fall is acceptable? These are expensive filters - shouldn't they be strong enough to survive falls? (Just food for thought, I'm not actually that dense.)
I definitely notice more flares and artifacts with cheapo filters. But then again, I tend not to drop my cameras, so I just as well not use them.
I use $15 filters just for protection and unless I'm shooting right into the sun or into candle light I don't notice any flare. For all I know I'd get flare without the filter but it doesn't matter since I tend to avoid shooting into the sun anyways. I'd be using a ND filter if I was.
blastingcap
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2010
- 6,654
- 5
- 76
Yes, filters can affect ghosting and flares especially, but you would be surprised how much abuse a front element can take before it clearly shows up on the photo, so I imagine that it would take one hell of a bad clear or UV filter to really impact your photos with it (except for ghosting and flares).
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter