I don't notice much difference between using a filter and not using one. I don't really use UV's much now though, but I do find I have a polarizer on alot of the time.
One thing to throw into the mix: if you're out in the field with minimal equipment, and your lens somehow gets dirty, you'll be very happy that you're using a UV filter if you need to use the "T-shirt technique."
I go back and forth on this all the time, so I don't have one solution to provide, but I'll say that I would be less likely to use UV filters if I worked in a studio instead of going hiking in the middle of nowhere.
Blowing sand, flying mud +/or gravel UV-high quality multicoat. Bright sun, glare,
reflections off autos/products/water a high quality multicoat CirPol. Sunrise and
sunsets ocassional use of grad ND-again high quality multicoat. OTHERWISE
no filters!! as they degrade our beloved glass.
DaveEP wrote:
Putting it there as part of the design process, and adding it afterwards are two different things.
I did my own tests, and sharpness, colour and contrast all suffered with the (high quality) filter ON, specially without the hood. In the tests I did, using a hood made more difference than anything, and a hood wil 'generally' protect the front elecment too.
Just curious and trying to educate myself. Why does using the hood matter so much?
I tend to shoot mostly indoors, but occasionally shoot outside and I never use a hood. I'd just like to get a better understanding.
Thanks in advance for your help.
EA6B wrote:
Put 10 filters on your lens and see if it degrades the quality. If it does, then why would you want 1/10 of that amount of degradation on your images.
E
The point is not degradation but protection. No one puts a filter on a lens so it decreases the image quality...
cad3 wrote:
Just curious and trying to educate myself. Why does using the hood matter so much?
I tend to shoot mostly indoors, but occasionally shoot outside and I never use a hood. I'd just like to get a better understanding.
Thanks in advance for your help.
-C
The hood prevents 'stray light' from entering the lens from all angles, being reflected, refracted, flaring etc etc. To put it simply, only light coming from the direction of the subject is allowed to enter the lens (assuming the hood is designed for this focal length), and prevents 'other' light from diluting/spoiling the quality of the image. It cuts out the peripheral light! That's not a very technical explanation, but it should give you the idea.
I found that using the hood means I (usually) get better colour saturation and (almost always) am able to focus better too.
I am sure some one (who is less tired than I am at the moment) will come up with a better way of explaining it!
If you are using a flash (indoors for instance) you are likely to get the flash reflecting off all sorts of surfaces and directions, back to the lens, posibly causing flare etc. I never shoot with flash or studio lighting without a hood on the lens. Never.
I only have one lens that does not have a hood, and I almost never shoot with that lens.
Also, with the hood on, if you happen to drop the camera, it's going to fall on the hood, and not the front of the glass.
Some subjects, techniques or environments require a filter designed for it. Do we just avoid these subjects, techniques or environments in search of ultimate image quality?
In a pure technical sense, it does. But at what point is it noticeable? Some shots benefit from the glare reduction of a polarizer, and the enhanced visual appeal of the photo usually far outweighs any MTF loss. In my 4x5 days, I used to stack 2 Lee resin Grads together and never worried about it.
Savas K wrote:
Some subjects, techniques or environments require a filter designed for it. Do we just avoid these subjects, techniques or environments in search of ultimate image quality?
Filters do have their place; PL, ND, Gradual ND filters, etc. are neccesary tools for some types of landscape shooting. What people are referring to, in this case, are mostly UV or skylight filters, mostly used for protection rather than creating a specific image normally not obtained without.
I put a brand new tiffen UV filter on the brand new sigma 80-400mm we had gotten at work and never touched the lense again for 6 months. After several people telling me what a great lens it was I tried it out again and then I thought to maybe try it out without the filter. Dear lord, I'll never use another tiffen filter again. Everyting was so desaturated through it.
tFloat wrote:
Some L lens require a filter to complete weather sealing
This is true, but if you are not in an environment that *requires* the weather sealing (ie driving rain, sand etc - which is exactly when I DO use the filters), you don't actually need the filter to make the lens work.....
On occasion I have noticed an increase in flare under certain circumstances when using high quality UV filters (Hoya Super HMC or B&W MRC), but this is the exception verses the rule.
dhphoto wrote:
... Seems odd to me that 'folk' will measurebate thier highly expensive lenses and them put glass in its light path. ...
You mean like the glass the lens elements are made from? I'm not trying to be a WA (not wide angle ), but producing a high quality optically flat piece of glass is a walk in the park compared to producing/grinding lens elements. Even the cheapest filter makers have this part down. It's the glass itself and the coatings that really matter. The effect other than flare, and perhapes some 'very minor' contrast reduction, is minimal at best IMO. I guess it depends on what environmenet you use your lenses in. I can be brutal at times.
Al_10D wrote:
No matter how good the filter is it will produces flares almost 100% of the times if light source is in the frame. ...
Yep, I 'temporarly' remove them under such circumstances.
grendel wrote:
Okay, so is anyone going to post with/without 100% crops and show us what difference their (high-quality) filter makes? ...
How about what difference low quality filters don't make? See below...
chrishierons wrote:
Filters degrade quality...I have notice my focus improve without a filter
These are two seperate issues. I'll admit I've seen an AF perfomance hit on one of my lenses, and no change on the rest, except for one that actually has a better AF accuracy hit ratio with a filter (EOS 50mm 1.8).
Shmackey wrote:
One thing to throw into the mix: if you're out in the field with minimal equipment, and your lens somehow gets dirty, you'll be very happy that you're using a UV filter if you need to use the "T-shirt technique."
That's me. Between wet sand on the beach from runners, mud from MotoCross events, and plops from me walking in goop, my t-shirt gets a workout.
EA6B wrote:
Put 10 filters on your lens and see if it degrades the quality.
How about 4 cheap filters stacked?
cogitech wrote:
The Hoya Super HMC (or Pro1) are pretty damn good for the money. I've got a Pro1 72mm that I use on my Tamron 24-135 ...
Speaking of which
I did a test a few years back to test for any sharpness degradation introduced through the use of filters. At first I thought of using several high quality filters, but decided that if I didn't see a difference, there would be someone who swore they did. However, if I used several low quality filters stacked and I didn't see a difference then it would be hard for someone to argue that a single high quality filter would be detrimental to image sharpness.
Now, I already admit that AF performance can be affected on certain lenses (sometimes for the better), flare can be an issue for certain type of shots, and a reduction in contrast may occur under the same circumstances. That is not what this test was for. It was to determine if using 'glass' filters was often responsible for a reduction in image sharpness.
The image below shows two manually focused images. One with no filter, and one with 4 stacked filters. One of them was an entry level Kenko multi-coated filter. The other three were no-name non-coated filters I bought for an optical experiment off ebay for less than $10.00 each.
The sun was at my back and it was a overcast day (didn't want flare and contrast reduction to be an issue) although the clouds did move and change the light enough between shots that I had to take several and compare them when I got home to get one from each group that had similar lighting. I shot RAW and converted using the BreezeBrowser (Canon's RAW converter) with no sharpening. Anyway, here it is. I have some others somewhere If I can remember where I put them.
The first thing I noticed was the slight red cast (CA?) of the bottom of the 'A' and 'C' disappeared when the filters were used. Weird. Other than that I cannot see a significant difference in sharpness. BTW, as I remember there did not appear to be any color shifts to speak of in other test shots that might account for this.
If you feel uneasy about the 'zoomed' samples provided due to the use of the nearest neighbor algorithm, open it in PS and use zoom to do the same thing. You'll see they are the same...
This is true, but if you are not in an environment that *requires* the weather sealing (ie driving rain, sand etc - which is exactly when I DO use the filters), you don't actually need the filter to make the lens work.....
Dave,
Thanks for detailing filter usage conditions. That is what I do, currently using B+W mrc filters (including my polariser). When I use the uv's for "protection" or forget to remove, I do not notice image degradation due to the filter.
What I do notice is is degradation from wider f stops and higher iso needed due to conditions that make the filter use prudent.
tFloat wrote:
When I use the uv's for "protection" or forget to remove, I do not notice image degradation due to the filter.
Unless you directly compare the shots with and without filter, you will not be able to tell the difference. The higher the quality of the filter, the less difference you can tell between the two, and that only under certain lighting conditions, such as backlighting that includes direct light sources.
My personal take is, if you don't see the difference and feel better about having protection for your lens, more power to you. Whatever floats your boat. We tend to convince people on the other camp to go to ours and they do the same. The net end result is nil, to each his own.
I am not trying to convince anyone, simply stating what my typical usage is on this subject.
Did this kind of testing with Asahi, Leica M3, and Hasselblad equipment in the 60's and 70's when I did ad and commercial for a living, and ran some tests after acquiring B+W filters last year for my Canon stuff.
I used to think the problem was limited to slightly less flare resistance, but I notice there is a slight change in sharpness on my 17-40L when I mount my polarizer. When it comes down to it, if I need polarization I need it and I won't hesitate to use it.
I use a hoya circular polarizer, an $80 one.
I don't see the point in "protecting my lens" with a UV filter. I have insurance for that.
), but producing a high quality optically flat piece of glass is a walk in the park compared to producing/grinding lens elements. Even the cheapest filter makers have this part down. It's the glass itself and the coatings that really matter. The effect other than flare, and perhapes some 'very minor' contrast reduction, is minimal at best IMO. I guess it depends on what environmenet you use your lenses in. I can be brutal at times.