Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2009 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Two23
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

ishootsports3 wrote:
yes not shooting a filter is nice, but when you have your camera pulled into the ground it sure is nice to have a filter on that puppy

That happened to my F100/Nikon 80-400mm VR once when a 70 mile an hour wind blew it right off the steep hillside I was working on. Lens landed "face" first. I had a Heliopan circ. polarizer on, but no lens cap. Some gravel went right through the filter and broken shards from the filter totally destroyed the front of my lens. My conclusion was that if I had the lens cap on, the lens would have been protected. If I had also had the lens hood on, it would have absorbed some of the blow. My final conclusion was that if I had no filter on at all, the element would still have been destroyed, but since it was on I ended up having to ALSO replace a $120 filter along with the repair. The cost to replace lens element was cheaper than the filter!

Kent in SD

Nov 18, 2009 at 01:45 AM

Elan II
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

trenchmonkey wrote:
Cir Pols when the situation calls for it, smart ass.

Yes, of course. Btw, what do you think Nikon makes all those NC filters for? They happened to come in all the same sizes as their lens filter threads.

And yes, this is my standard silly response for people saying filters don't belong on lenses. Nikon used to sell some lenses with external filters included at one time. The last one was the 45/2.8 P I believe. You're free to consider filters useless, or even evil if you like. But when it comes to optical formulas, neutral external filters have no effect since they are not an optic.

Nov 18, 2009 at 02:24 AM

ishootsports3
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Two23 wrote:
ishootsports3 wrote:
yes not shooting a filter is nice, but when you have your camera pulled into the ground it sure is nice to have a filter on that puppy

That happened to my F100/Nikon 80-400mm VR once when a 70 mile an hour wind blew it right off the steep hillside I was working on. Lens landed "face" first. I had a Heliopan circ. polarizer on, but no lens cap. Some gravel went right through the filter and broken shards from the filter totally destroyed the front of my lens. My conclusion was that if I had the lens cap on, the lens would have been protected. If I had also had the lens hood on, it would have absorbed some of the blow. My final conclusion was that if I had no filter on at all, the element would still have been destroyed, but since it was on I ended up having to ALSO replace a $120 filter along with the repair. The cost to replace lens element was cheaper than the filter!

Kent in SD

ouch, i was shooting biking in the woods and my buddy hit the jump and then comes over to look and whatcha know steps on the strap pulling the camera lense first into the ground, luckily he did not pull it hard and the ground was soft, i was very glad i had the filter on there to say the least

70-200 btw

Nov 18, 2009 at 02:30 AM

woodfin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Sorry I am not sure how to upload images to this page. I have added a sample to my Flickr Site. It's a combined image cut from the two orig. images. The left was is without a filter, the right with the Tiffen "Ultra Clear" filter.


	http://www.flickr.com/photos/woodfin/4113967580/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/woodfin/4113967580/

Nov 18, 2009 at 02:41 AM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Elan II wrote:
...neutral external filters have no effect since they are not an optic.

If you can see light that passes through it, or if it affects the light you see in any way, it's "optical". Neutral external filters are most definitely optics. Even the air-glass and glass-air edges have a role to play in optics.

Whoever told you that neutral filters are not optics?

Nov 18, 2009 at 03:07 AM

90 5.0
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Never used a clear filter, I have cir pols,color filters nd's ,warming,uv(I like the haze 1a) etc etc.

I shoot in all kinds of crazy conditions(I travel internationally for work and end up in some crazy places).

I have never noticed any kind of massive noticeable degradation in iq(not that my iq is any good anyway with or with out a filter

).

I shoot with filters only in situations that call for it, ie specific use filter or I think something bad could happen, Ie in an ice storm on the north slope for example. Or at party's I'll let my camera pass around different friends and the lens doesn't have a hood a filter gets thrown on.

I use hoods for all other situations, my 70-300 lens has pieces broken off of it and the front element is still perfect.

Nov 18, 2009 at 03:18 AM

Elan II
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Elan II wrote:
...neutral external filters have no effect since they are not an optic.

If you can see light that passes through it, or if it affects the light you see in any way, it's "optical". Neutral external filters are most definitely optics. Even the air-glass and glass-air edges have a role to play in optics.

Whoever told you that neutral filters are not optics?

You're splitting hairs now, Rodolfo. By this standard, the air in front of your lens is also an optic. You know very well the difference between optical and non-optical glass. Light transmission is a different issue. The better filters allow 97-98% of the light to pass through, which roughly equals a loss of 1/20th of a stop. I doubt your camera's meter is sensitive enough to even pick up that small of a difference.

woodfin, call Tiffen. Show them these images. What I see is quite drastic and I'm sure they'd want to know about it. I've received some real junk filters over time with lenses I purchased and actually tested a few of them. None ever looked anywhere near as bad as this.

Nov 18, 2009 at 03:46 AM

skyvan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

All glass are optics. Different types of glass are opaque to different kind of lightwaves and cause varying reflections, thus all glass is an optiic. Whomever said that filters are not an optic is severely misinformed.

Nov 18, 2009 at 04:14 AM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Elan II wrote:
You're splitting hairs now, Rodolfo. By this standard, the air in front of your lens is also an optic. You know very well the difference between optical and non-optical glass.

Not intentionally, I'm not. Neutral filters are an optic because they do (or can) change something about the light as you see through them. And the air in between the filter and the front element of the lens -- or, more precisely, the glass-to-air interface behind the filter plus the air-to-glass interface into the front element as the light enters the lens -- do have optical effects in any situation. Heck, I'll even agree that the air in front of your lens has optical qualities, since I've shot airplanes in hazy weather where certainly the light transmission was different due only to the air itself.

But anyway, the point was simply that neutral filters are definitely optics because they do, or can, change something about the light you receive through them. Even at 97% light transmission, they're very good optics... yet optics nonetheless. The other reason why they must be considered optics is the one being discussed in this thread: that a perfect neutral filter would not have a perceptible effect on image quality, but not all filters are good enough to achieve that result and some can mildly, or severely, damage IQ.

Nov 18, 2009 at 12:43 PM

LeifG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

There is little point to a UV filter. They usually have a noticeable colour, and absorb a significant amount of light. Camera sensors come with UV and IR filters in the sensor cover glass. Hence a neutral filter is best, or no filter if preferred.

Elan II wrote:
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Elan II wrote:
...neutral external filters have no effect since they are not an optic.

If you can see light that passes through it, or if it affects the light you see in any way, it's "optical". Neutral external filters are most definitely optics. Even the air-glass and glass-air edges have a role to play in optics.

Whoever told you that neutral filters are not optics?

You're splitting hairs now, Rodolfo. By this standard, the air in front of your lens is also an optic. You know very well the difference between optical and non-optical glass. Light transmission is a different issue. The better filters allow 97-98% of the light to pass through, which roughly equals a loss of 1/20th of a stop. I doubt your camera's meter is sensitive enough to even pick up that small of a difference.

woodfin, call Tiffen. Show them these images. What I see is quite drastic and I'm sure they'd want to know about it. I've received some real junk filters over time with lenses I purchased and actually tested a few of them. None ever looked anywhere near as bad as this.

Technically a filter is an optical element. An optic is used to dispense spirits e.g. whisky.

Nov 18, 2009 at 01:33 PM

Baywing
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

The idea that every air to glass surface affects IQ is physics. I took a class with Ron Wisner (highly regarded LF camera and lens maker and the man knows optics!) and every air to glass surface that light rays hit, there will be a percentage of those rays that are reflected and a percentage that are refracted. Those percentages are a function of the quality of the glass (materials), the quality of the workmanship of the filter and the characteristics of the coatings used (if you are going to put a filter on a lens, it should be the highest quality and have the best coatings available to maximize IQ). Even under the best conditions, with a high quality multicoated filter you are loosing 1% of your incoming light per air/glass surface to reflection and refraction. That's 2% for a filter. The question now becomes what effect does that have on the final image? It all depends on the shooting conditions and the ability of the observer to detect IQ degradation. For many, if not most, people, 2% isn't much and may not even be noticable under average conditions of daylight, frontlit subject etc. Under extreme conditions (rim-lit, back-lit, spot light source in frame) this loss may become more visible.
The ultimate decision is an individual one. I used to use a L37c or L1BC all the time on my 35mm lenses. Never used anything on the MF or LF stuff. About 15 years ago, I took all the filters off and haven't looked back. The modern NIC are very durable indeed and have held up flawlessly. I do see a slight increase in IQ without the filters, that is me, YMMV. About 2 years ago, I was on a whale watch boat and saw a photog's 100-400 hit the aluminum deck. It was inside it's padded bag, hit front side down. Filter was shattered and shards ruined the front element of the lens. In what could only be described as the ultimate irony, later that day we saw a humpback named Shards. I'm a firm believer in lens hoods for both physical and flare protection.

Nov 18, 2009 at 01:58 PM

traveler
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Both Hoya Pro1 series as well as the B+W MRC series transmit 99.7% of light through them unmolested with their 7 layer coatings. If you can see that...........good for you. At full size on a calibrated screen I can't and haven't for over a decade of using them. Most certainly not one iota in print to say the least. As for YOUR filter shattering and messing up your front element, I have read too many post to have kept count, of folks that have dropped their camera/lens combo's where the filter was shattered or cracked or the rims messed up and were able to extract the filter from the end of the lens leaving the lens like new with NO damage at all to the front element. You got unlucky and found a way to have it strike just right to get your result, but I'd have to say after reading forums on photography since the mid 90's I've NEVER seen ONE example like yours. They were all the opposite of your experience.

Nov 18, 2009 at 03:59 PM

skyvan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

BTW, Everyone is talking about the optic question (I commented on it myself) but I also wanted to mention that UV is not something to truly worry about. Most of the more powerful UV rays are absorbed in to the ozone and upper atmosphere and therefore we only have about 5% of the potential UV rays coming to earth and if you are in a place where there are lots of them you shouldn't be worrying as much about stopping those few stray rays that the camera filter doesn't get stopped but should instead be worrying about your own health, UV rays can be really bad for your skin and you'll feel it, and wish you hadn't been worrying so much about your photos when you are covered in camomile and aloe vera for a week.

And one other thing. I have heard the 70-200 front element is supposed to actually be a front filter, as it is user removable. Any truth to this?

Nov 18, 2009 at 05:16 PM

Baywing
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Nov 18, 2009 at 05:51 PM

Pavel
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Only girlz shoot with filters!

Nov 18, 2009 at 05:52 PM

Pavel
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

I think the issue of sky filters on the front is overblown. I don't use em and I treat my gear as gear ... not worship objects (although I do think the Nikons come close to devine status)

Unless ya screw it on sideways, its not going to impact you shooting any more than average disregard for where the sun is.

Of course other than ND filters and polarizers I don't personally use them. But that is because I hate carrying them around even more than stacking them - and I lose most small things faster than I care to pay for their replacements.

No mishaps so far in 40 or so years at this game. I've dropped lenses many times with various and interesting results but honestly none that a filter has ever made a positive or negative difference on. But if tomorrow I drop a lens (or whatever) where the filter would have made a difference - I'm still happily going to plod my way filterless, just like now. Cause I'm lazy and I jaywalk sometimes too!

Besides ... for the cost of a set of good filters I could buy that 105 f 2.0 DC that I've got my sights set on next.

So I prefer to go bare - even though I don't think a filter reduced my IQ in any meaningful way. Only moving back to Canon would do that.

But still ..... only girlz shoot with filters.

Nov 18, 2009 at 06:04 PM

traveler
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

Someone asked me to provide a source for the various war stories I've read over the years regarding dropped cameras/lenses with filters attached and the typical result of a broken filter and a saved lens. That would be Photo.net and Dpreview typically. As for filter's vs. no filters, I've done both and not had issues of IQ loss as I said. I have a B+W MRC on the end of my 24-70 f2.8 and a Hoya Super HMC on the end of a 70-300vr. I've tried both in the on and off scenario shooting both indoors and out and saw no difference in contrast or sharpness rendered. Didn't see any flare induced either. I just leave it on because it allows me to just forget about worry of dust or general contaminant intrusion. Oh and I don't treat my gear as gear....I treat my equipment as "instruments" which deserve both my respect and consideration in use. We are all entitled to treat our possessions as we wish. If you feel more accomplished banging it around by all means....have at it. That's just not the way I treat my things in general. Whatever floats your boat go right ahead....you paid for it.

Nov 18, 2009 at 07:38 PM

davidnholtjr
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

woodfin wrote:
I'm looking for a little expert advice.
I have a Nikon 300MM F4 on my D300. It's rock solid and tack sharp...Without a filter on the front.
I bought a Tiffen Digital HT Ultra Clear filter. It's an expensive clear filter that when I look through it is... Crystal clear. But, every image I take with it is very soft. Not just a little back or front focus, but a terrible looking, out of focus shot.
Any thoughts on what would cause this ?

No filter is the best option for the best photos. Unless you need a special filter like a ND or CPL.

Edited on Nov 18, 2009 at 09:15 PM · View previous versions

Nov 18, 2009 at 08:53 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

traveler wrote:
Both Hoya Pro1 series as well as the B+W MRC series transmit 99.7% of light through them unmolested with their 7 layer coatings. If you can see that...........good for you. At full size on a calibrated screen I can't and haven't for over a decade of using them. Most certainly not one iota in print to say the least. As for YOUR filter shattering and messing up your front element, I have read too many post to have kept count, of folks that have dropped their camera/lens combo's where the filter was shattered or cracked or the rims messed up and were able to extract the filter from the end of the lens leaving the lens like new with NO damage at all to the front element. You got unlucky and found a way to have it strike just right to get your result, but I'd have to say after reading forums on photography since the mid 90's I've NEVER seen ONE example like yours. They were all the opposite of your experience.

+10

For my own purposes, I use clear filters to make my life easier. It is far easier to clean a filter than a front element of a lens. You can dunk a filter if need be. You can hold it up to the light and look through it and see the smudges far easier. And, if you do scratch it, it is easy to replace.

Ever try to clean sea spray off a lens? How about road salt, or sap? I treat my equipment well, but I shoot in a lot of adverse conditions. Filters make the cleanup job easier.

And for those situations where the filter does effect things (flare from direct light), I simply take it off!!

I do NOT use filters not to protect my lens from drops. It's not going to do that. The best way to protect against drops is to be careful.

Nov 18, 2009 at 09:09 PM

Elan II
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · Clear Filter = Soft Images ?

I've seen a version of this debate repeat itself in different places at different times. It always ends up going nowhere. Photographers tend to be total zealots about issues like this.

If anyone wants to get past the anecdotal innuendo and become more informed, Lenstip did a comprehensive set UV and polarizer filter tests which includes all the major brands we use. You're not going to find ammunition for either side of the debate there. But I still think it's time well spent.

UV filter test.
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

UV filter test supplement.
http://www.lenstip.com/1775-news-UV_filters_test_-_supplement.html

Polarizer filter test.
http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html

Polarizer filter test supplement.
http://www.lenstip.com/1769-news-Polarizing_filters_test_-_supplement.html

Nov 19, 2009 at 12:27 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end