filtered image degradation test, help me out

[hawk232]

Just in my short time on this forum I have read so many varying opinions on UV filters and quality degradation it makes my head spin. What I am looking for is suggestions of objects to shoot where you would typically see the downside of have a uv filter on 24/7. I am mainly doing this so I can make my own decision on what I will do, but I can post the results if anyone cares. I would just like some insight into some typical situations where uv filters are said to have adverse effects on image quality.

 

[tirediron]

The most noticeable effect will generally be when shooting toward or into the sun. Bear in mind though that the quality of the filter in use will have FAR more effect than the subject matter. That is: a $150 B+W or Heliopan UV filter will likely have an imperceptible effect on IQ in all but the most extreme conditions, whereas a $10 eBay filter from "People's Camera Filter Works #6, Shanghai" will have a significant effect even under optimal conditions.

 

[Buckster]

I used them on all my lenses for years, and didn't see any detrimental effects.

Then I stopped using them because of something that happened when I was doing a sensor cleaning.

Having cleaned the sensor, I shot a perfectly white backdrop to check for any remaining dust, dots, etc. There were none, but I noticed there were slight rainbow-colored patterns over the whole photo - very faint, but definitely there. I puzzled over this for quite a while, shooting different apertures and so on to try to figure out what was going on.

Then, just to see if it would make any difference, I removed the UV filter. When I did that, they were gone. I put it back on, and they returned. Removed it again, and they were gone again.

I've never used a UV filter on a lens since.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I agree with what has been said. Most people ( and every salesperson) will tell you that you must have them for protection. Baloney. Unless there is an excessive risk of damage ( salt water mist, mud at a motorcross track, dust storm etc ) They are pretty much a waste. You can buy super expensive ones and perhaps not notice a difference, but why waste the cash if its overkill? Get a really nice CPL filter instead.

 

[hawk232]

im not trying to turn this into another opinions thread, lord knows there are tons of those!! I am looking for suggestions, where I can perform MY OWN tests (to take the subjectivness out of it) to see if there is a quality difference.

What situations do filter blemishes most often rear their ugly heads? so far we have: shooting towards the sun. Keep em coming!

 

[hawk232]

forgot to mention, thanks Buckster for the real world experience!! A thread filled with posts like that wouldnt be bad, but when people start rattling off " well my uncles, brotherin laws sister was shooting a dog one day and the dog told her that his cat friend said you shouldnt use a filter because they dont taste good" the thread becomes useless!

 

[Big Mike]

Maybe not what you're looking for, but I dropped a camera one time and it landed lens-down onto pavement. The filter was destroyed but the lens was undamaged.

That being said, I don't use UV filters at all.

 

[JeffieLove]

the only way to do your OWN test is going to be to buy a cheap one, buy an expensive one, and take pictures of the same subject, at the same time of day, and with each filter, then without a filter... You can't perform your OWN test by asking people on a forum...

 

[Derrel]

Shoot a birthday cake with lighted candles in a darkened room. Or shoot a nightscape with lights seen against a dark field; light sources against dark "fields" are a prime example of the situations where UV filters really tend to leave their "mark" as it were.

 

[JeffieLove]

Just in my short time on this forum I have read so many varying opinions on UV filters and quality degradation it makes my head spin. What I am looking for is suggestions of objects to shoot where you would typically see the downside of have a uv filter on 24/7. I am mainly doing this so I can make my own decision on what I will do, but I can post the results if anyone cares. I would just like some insight into some typical situations where uv filters are said to have adverse effects on image quality.

forgot to mention, thanks Buckster for the real world experience!! A thread filled with posts like that wouldnt be bad, but when people start rattling off " well my uncles, brotherin laws sister was shooting a dog one day and the dog told her that his cat friend said you shouldnt use a filter because they dont taste good" the thread becomes useless!

That's basically what you're asking for when you ask for "suggestions" from random people on the internet... Just sayin'

Just to make this more useful, I don't use filters. Lens hoods protect from the sun and they protect the frontal elements of the lens and they are a lot less expensive. That's what I use And yes, I can use a CPL with a lens hood on

 

[hawk232]

Just in my short time on this forum I have read so many varying opinions on UV filters and quality degradation it makes my head spin. What I am looking for is suggestions of objects to shoot where you would typically see the downside of have a uv filter on 24/7. I am mainly doing this so I can make my own decision on what I will do, but I can post the results if anyone cares. I would just like some insight into some typical situations where uv filters are said to have adverse effects on image quality.

forgot to mention, thanks Buckster for the real world experience!! A thread filled with posts like that wouldnt be bad, but when people start rattling off " well my uncles, brotherin laws sister was shooting a dog one day and the dog told her that his cat friend said you shouldnt use a filter because they dont taste good" the thread becomes useless!

That's basically what you're asking for when you ask for "suggestions" from random people on the internet... Just sayin'

Just to make this more useful, I don't use filters. Lens hoods protect from the sun and they protect the frontal elements of the lens and they are a lot less expensive. That's what I use And yes, I can use a CPL with a lens hood on

No, I was asking for suggestions on SITUATIONS that filters will effect quality, NOT suggestions on whether I should use one or not.

the only way to do your OWN test is going to be to buy a cheap one, buy an expensive one, and take pictures of the same subject, at the same time of day, and with each filter, then without a filter... You can't perform your OWN test by asking people on a forum...

yes, and that is exactly what I plan to do. I already have a sunpack uv and polarizer, next I will be ordering a b&w uv and polarizer. I will take my tripod and will be doing three of each shot. One with no filter, one with the cheapie and one with the more expensive. As stated before, I am not asking people whether or not I should use one, I am asking for SUGGESTIONS on SITUATIONS that cause problems so that I can replicate said "problems" and see for myself.

 

[o hey tyler]

You realize that Buckster did give you a "SITUATION" in which the UV filter harmed the image quality. In fact, it may have been harming his image quality in every situation, it was just more apparent on a white backdrop.

Sooooo maybe that's something that you should try, eh?

 

[hawk232]

I did notice, noted, and thanked in post 6. thanks for pointing it out though!

 

[KmH]

im not trying to turn this into another opinions thread, lord knows there are tons of those!! I am looking for suggestions, where I can perform MY OWN tests (to take the subjectivness out of it) to see if there is a quality difference.

It's not subjective. It's mathematically proven optical physics.

 

[hawk232]

alot of things are mathmatically proven while not detectable by the human eye. if the mathmatics expained it all, there would not be page after page of opinions on whether or not quality suffers due to the use of a uv filter.

thanks for those who posted useful info, I will use it and perform my own tests. Now I will let this thread die (since people cant quite see the point of it...)