I believe those are common reed as Ahamb stated...fortunately I did not have to walk through them as they were in a swamp. I had a hard time seeing a difference in the raw file as well. I'll take a look at the corners tonight to see if they are worse with the filter. At least this result gives me the confidence to leave the filter on as a lens cap.
I was also shooting in the opposite direction of the sun. Perhaps the result might be different if the sun was in sight of the lens. But at least in this situation, the filter did not deteriorate the IQ.
AhamB wrote:
I wonder if smridevan's samples with filter turned out slightly sharper because he focused while the filter was on (removing the filter changing the focus ever so slightly).
I can confirm that focus with and without filter are not exactly the same. Pretty close but there will be a difference at 100% though not a small apertures. One should always refocus when removing/adding filters.
Smridevan wrote:
I believe those are common reed as Ahamb stated...fortunately I did not have to walk through them as they were in a swamp. I had a hard time seeing a difference in the raw file as well. I'll take a look at the corners tonight to see if they are worse with the filter. At least this result gives me the confidence to leave the filter on as a lens cap.
Until one day you come home, DL all your images onto the computer, and find that the 3 or 4 best shots from the day were ruined because of the filter. And then you'll likely reconsider your position on that. Having that happen to me on not just one but MANY occasions is why I hate filters. Sure, in some tests it all looks fine... and then...
Anyway it doesn't matter to me what others do or think. What works for them works for them - until it doesn't and then it doesn't. I like ND, NDG, CP, IR, and even some silly effect filters. But only for their specific function. As a lens-guard or whatever no thanks!
D90? lens flare and contrast differences are all i expect to see at most and you shot in conditions where any chance of them showing up were minimized given where you chose to shoot. shoot the same on a D3X and then you can start to see the resolution loss.
Herb...
Smridevan wrote:
Filter test with B+W UV Haze MRC 72mm on a Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2 on D90. All images were taken on a tripod.
HerbChong wrote:
D90? lens flare and contrast differences are all i expect to see at most and you shot in conditions where any chance of them showing up were minimized given where you chose to shoot. shoot the same on a D3X and then you can start to see the resolution loss.
I agree that the scene is not challenging at all, but how would shooting on a less dense sensor show resolution loss better?
Like almost everything, once we get to always-never generalizations the discussion usually follows the Krushchev debating philosophy:
"If you have facts, pound the facts. If you don't have facts, pound the table."
Facts, to me, would be things like 1) how much does the front element of the lens cost, 2) how quick and easily could it be replaced, 3) what conditions am I shooting in.
My favorite silliness example is a friend who bought a $93 B&H filter to protect the front element of his Canon 70-200 f4 IS, which costs $76 from Canon parts and can be replaced at home in 15 minutes.
On the other hand, if I have an out of production lens, or one with an expensive front element (the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is $560, for example), or I'm shooting in blowing sand or salt spray, using a filter makes sense.
RCicala wrote:
My favorite silliness example is a friend who bought a $93 B&H filter to protect the front element of his Canon 70-200 f4 IS, which costs $76 from Canon parts and can be replaced at home in 15 minutes.
15 minutes once you get home after scrubbing the rest of the day's shooting. Cost isn't the only factor.
On the other hand, if I have an out of production lens, or one with an expensive front element (the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is $560, for example), or I'm shooting in blowing sand or salt spray, using a filter makes sense.
Just out of curiosity, how much does the new 24L II TSE front element cost? That's the lens that I fret about the most.
Also, I can't wait to get my camera back and shoot some disastrous filter tests. And I still need to dig up my last-but-one 67mm UV filter and shoot that, just to show what a year of fieldwork can do to a hunk of glass.
This topic just won't go away! Here's a link to an article by Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals that might clear-up the discussion. Or just fan the flames some more! As Roger from Lens Rentals says; "Some people use them. Some don’t. There’s not enough bandwidth to ever end that argument".
BTW, I use quality UV filters to protect the front element from dirt, dust, etc. Also manufactures like Canon say you need to use one to for "weather sealing" another well discussed topic on the forum.
Let's put it this way, if I was earning my living from photography, and shooting the kind of subjects that require the highest quality, I would shoot without filters. The lenses would be paid for by one single job.
However, I am a hobbyist who has to pay for my photo gear from my savings. My photos are normaly not sold, never printed beyond A4. I usually change gear often, and sell lenses that are only a couple of years old to finance the purchase of new pieces. I consider the UV filters a good investment that for a very little impact on IQ, will keep the front elements of my lenses looking new, and keep a high resale value.
I am sure many here are in the same situation as me.
obik wrote:
15 minutes once you get home after scrubbing the rest of the day's shooting. Cost isn't the only factor.
Just out of curiosity, how much does the new 24L II TSE front element cost? That's the lens that I fret about the most.
The 24 TS-E is not cheap, about $295 if I recall correctly. The most expensive ones I've run across are Canon 17 TS-E, Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II, and Nikon 14-24 all of which are $400+. The vast majority of front elements run $120-$160.
You can buy any one you need for Canon directly, but other brands can be hard to find. That being said, some front elements are a chip shot to replace. Many, though, are part of the the optical adjustment system of the lens, especially with zooms. Those are not something you can replace in 15 minutes and probably not something many people want to tackle at home.
I do think it's worthwhile knowing what's being protected. It's not really pertinent on this board (which is far more knowledgable than most), but many newcomers have been sold on the "you must have a UV filter to protect your $1,100 lens" pitch from the camera store salesman (they have to pitch it, filters are the highest profit margin item in the store). It's not protecting an $1,100 lens, it's protecting a $200 front element. That may still be very worthwhile, but it makes the math involved in buying a $100 filter a bit different.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The lenses would be paid for by one single job.
I see this sort of statement from time to time, and I have to admit that I don't understand it. Professional photographers on average are not earning all that much money (otherwise I would switch professions immediately), and if they don't have to buy a lens, the money is profit. Why would that be different for a pro than for an amateur?
No offense against you, Edward, whose contributions I very much enjoy
A filter isn't going to save the front element unless you drop your camera on a pillow. A neck strap is probobly a better investment for protecting your gear.
RCicala wrote:
...
My favorite silliness example is a friend who bought a $93 B&H filter to protect the front element of his Canon 70-200 f4 IS, which costs $76 from Canon parts and can be replaced at home in 15 minutes.
On the other hand, if I have an out of production lens, or one with an expensive front element (the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is $560, for example), or I'm shooting in blowing sand or salt spray, using a filter makes sense.
Thanks for the information, Roger. I didn't know you could directly order the parts. For serious hobbyists like myself who really don't know what these front elements cost, it makes it tough to determine to buy a UV filter or not. Then again, even if I could replace it in 15 minutes, is it still worth the time I'm not able to use the lens, in addition to waiting for the part from Canon? There's also the issue of the instructions for replacing it and making sure you have the right tools for the job. I'm sure that a lot of people would rather not bother.
I use B+W UV filters on my lenses, along with the lens hood. Living in SF, I tend to be near the beaches and get a combination of sand and salty air. I was recently in Death Valley and ended up getting nailed by a couple of sand storms. Thankfully the lenses were fine, and the UV filter and lens hood prevented any problems.
People also forget that there are some Canon lens (like the 17-40L) which specifically state that a filter is required to fully seal the lens.
RCicala wrote:
My favorite silliness example is a friend who bought a $93 B&H filter to protect the front element of his Canon 70-200 f4 IS, which costs $76 from Canon parts and can be replaced at home in 15 minutes.
My favorite silliness example is a photographer who scratched the front element of his 180mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt-R due to careless cleaning and spent $700 getting the front element replaced because the scratch caused the lens' resale value to drop $200.
carstenw wrote:
I see this sort of statement from time to time, and I have to admit that I don't understand it. Professional photographers on average are not earning all that much money (otherwise I would switch professions immediately), and if they don't have to buy a lens, the money is profit. Why would that be different for a pro than for an amateur?
No offense against you, Edward, whose contributions I very much enjoy
None taken, Carsten. I was kind of being sarcastic, Because I know most photographers do not earn that much money, and most do not shoot exacting subjects that require the highest IQ, and many probably could not afford to loose or replace a lens. I was referring mostly to those celebrity photographers who can actually afford to toss the lenses in the trash bin after a job, but obviously they are a very small minority.
The average alt forum member makes more cash than the average pro, I'm sure. That's why we can afford Leica and Zeiss glass, while many pros would be envious. Then we go about photographing benches at wide apertures, windy landscapes without tripod, street photography with zone focusing, sleeping cats and dogs... etc, and then some will claim they need the best IQ for such photos and they won't use a filter for that reason. The whole issue is exaggerated IMHO.
edwardkaraa wrote:
None taken, Carsten. I was kind of being sarcastic, Because I know most photographers do not earn that much money, and most do not shoot exacting subjects that require the highest IQ, and many probably could not afford to loose or replace a lens. I was referring mostly to those celebrity photographers who can actually afford to toss the lenses in the trash bin after a job, but obviously they are a very small minority.
The average alt forum member makes more cash than the average pro, I'm sure. That's why we can afford Leica and Zeiss glass, while many pros would be envious. Then we go about photographing benches at wide apertures, windy landscapes without tripod, street photography with zone focusing, sleeping cats and dogs... etc, and then some will claim they need the best IQ for such photos and they won't use a filter for that reason. The whole issue is exaggerated IMHO....Show more →
Flip comparing; the no filter side looks sharper to me. And the filtered side has a bunch of destroyed detail too.
<shrug>
By flipping through the two images, I can see that the image without the Nikon L37c filter has a tiny bit more micro-contrast and sharpness than the image with the filter.
I did the same thing with the image with the B+W filter and the image without, and the difference is not as noticeable if at all. I guess this does show that a more expensive filter does make a difference, albeit a very small one.
I like ND, NDG, CP, IR, and even some silly effect filters. But only for their specific function. As a lens-guard or whatever no thanks!