Discussion in 'Articles of Interest' started by table1349, Jun 5, 2017.
My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article
An interesting read. TFS
Yeah that was interesting. It's about time someone had the motivation to do an in depth technical test of protective filters.
However, I still won't use them.
Hey if you can sell a bit of aluminum and clear glass to people* for $200+ more power to you.
I honestly never understood why some buy really expensive lenses, like $3000 and then put a cheap $5 UV filter on it. I mean come on....
I think they need to do more testing.
They do more good than harm. That mid-to-high end filters don't measurably/meaningfully(that's Cicala's key finding) degrade image quality puts to rest the near-urban legend that they're a damaging factor. Can only say they've spared pricey-rare-favorite optics from harm on more than a few occasions. Cicala's especially good at debunking various "flat earth" arguments I see all too often here and elsewhere.
Why does it bother you? Would you feel better if it were a $50 filter. A protective filter is just a flat piece of optical glass.
I have a CPL which I take off and put on as I need it.
I wish I was good enough to be able to see the difference these filters make in my images........
Just test a filter on instagram
I didnt notice a difference at first but then I twisted it and my blues went more blue
Filters: handy during the springtime when trees drop thousands of minute sap particles into the air: makes for easy,quick cleaning of the lens. Same at the seashore on days when the wind blows a lot of fine,fine salt-air particles onshore...easier to wipe down that flat, exposed filter.
Mostly, filters are sold as high-profit items for sales associates.
Separate names with a comma.