Nice tests. Kind of confirms what my experience with them has been. Ironically they favored the 2 I happen to use. Thanks for that link. I knew I wasn't crazy
A couple of surprises there, like how low the Heliopan UV filters scored. Btw, I took the 'mean transmission of ultraviolet light' score out of the total, since it's not really an issue for digital cameras.
I find hoods and insurance much better protection for a lens than a dinky piece of glass on a dinky piece of metal. But whatever makes you feel comfortable...
What a dumb review. It goes to show a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.First of all like Elan has pointed out ... somebody run out and tell the guy that the UV and IR is cut nowadays at the filter on the digital sensor, so weighing it in is akin to testing which Digital SLR comes packaged with the largest bundle - of film.
UV ... or Sky filters don't do a thing with digital now, not like with film where they provided a dramatic change. (one where when you left the filter off in landscapes often helped btw with the appearance of depth.)
At that point I should have just stopped reading. But flaw number two is that the flare with filters comes up worst not in all conditions or lenses but in those times where the extra distance of the filter catches the rays of the light where it wouldn't have if it were not on. Try the test on a lens that does not tend to flare, not that siggy. Then you will see the contrast (or lack there of)
I don't care what each person decides on. UV used to be vital for changing the look. Along the way some discovered that it made them feel more comfortable to have another glass surface in front for protection. That is valid. It was more valid in the early days of lenses where coatings were very soft. They are not anymore. Putting a UV filter does nothing to change the look of the shot anymore except to perhaps change the color. In some cases flare and other degradations do nothing - in other moments it makes a significant difference. To put the filter on and off as needs be is perhaps the best solution for those worried about the concept of some kind of damage - but that dumb test goes to make me think that it is a sad day nowadays in the internet world where you can get all kinds of seemingly wonderful information - three quarters of it - half baked.
I do find one paradox. Someone like traveler is keen to keep a filter on for protection. Great - no problem there. But then he goes on to claim how great his care of his instruments. Hmmm. Perhaps then he only choses to shoot when the conditions are not going to harm his "instruments"? Or perhaps his shooting subject is one where he can be careful as need be? So if he is so careful - likely not to even suffer the possibility of a horrid instrument scratch - should his style kind of make filters mostly unnecessary? Mostly just a security blanket? Perhaps traveler, you spend a thousand bucks over time on top end filters ( I've got about $900 in polarizers and ND stuff myself) but would consider a $350 dollar repair the end of the world.
Hey to each his own ... but filters cost serious bucks and still marginally degrade the image. My shooting requires me occasionally to consider the shot is more important than the scratch or the possibility of damage. I throw them if need be. If I bust one - that is the price of business (and it comes off at tax time as an expense). I squeeze through strange places to get shots, I shoot at the beach, I shoot in Rain and in heat that burns the hand when you touch that black surface. And despite that - in many years ... not a scratch to be seen on the front element.
"Does it need mentioning here that a scratch on the front makes no impact on the image quality. No impact, thats right. Only with respect to flare, under conditions where UV filters show their weaknesses worst will you see it. Scratches on the front increase flare - very subtly. On the back ... well then its time for a new lens.
So if you or anyone else likes the security blanket ....thats great. Put two on! The instrument will be twice as safe!
But pardon the other side who don't buy placeboes - and do just fine. You were crazy - just ... there are many of you. ( said without one hundred smileys but meant in a light hearted fashion )
Nov 19, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
panos.v wrote:
I find hoods and insurance much better protection for a lens than a dinky piece of glass on a dinky piece of metal. But whatever makes you feel comfortable...
+1
Filters are not for protection. They should be used to modify exposure OR make clean-up easier in those messy situations. That's what I use them for.
Yeah, I know Pavel.....you've been around here perhaps about as long as I've been. I've done more than my share of weddings over the years, and yes, I'd have to admit as dangerous or risky some have said they can be to gear, I've never had anyone so much as come near to touch mine. I just kept moving I'm not a "kid person" so no risks there either. I'm even going to admit I never bothered to slap a filter on my Tamron 28-300vc and thus far no issues there. I have perhaps $150 invested in UV's for my other 3 lenses so it's really not a big deal. I just "set it and forget it". I do have a Nikkor 77mm CP which doesn't get a lot of use, but it was probably more money than all of the other filters combined. I was mainly saying that with top quality UV's on the end they don't present much of an IQ issue. I think the filter vs. no filter thing is way overblown, and probably exploited on the internet as it is good fodder for argument/discussion. Oh well.....I suspect we ALL have better things to do.
i've had many images compromised by top of the line filters causing flare when without them the lens didn't flare. using the hood would have prevented some of them but you can't easily attach or adjust a CPL with a hood attached with many lenses. there are times when i can shade the lens with something but there are many times when i can't.
Herb...
traveler wrote:
was mainly saying that with top quality UV's on the end they don't present much of an IQ issue.
( said without one hundred smileys but meant in a light hearted fashion )