More truth about UV/Protection filters. A comparison challenge. Step up

[mrpink]

I believe most of the car plastic headlight housing has a UV coating on it. If you use polish compound and rub it off, your headlight housing may turn yellow quicker.

Do you mean this link?

LensRentals.com - Front Element Scratches

Not the link I was thinking of.










p!nK

 

[usayit]

:lmao:

Hummers have square headlights, don't they?


And I've seen more stuck Hummers than Jeeps...
(Mostly due to the fact that Hummer owners think they're invincible since they have a Hummer...)

Hummers H1 have round lamps within square bezels

My 93 yj 4 banger has bonified square lamps.....

 

[tirediron]

I don't know your name Barcode

Do you mean me?
(It's a Jeep, and my name is in my signature - Josh. )

If'n it ain't made by Willy's-Overland, t'ain't a Jeep!!

 

[Ron Evers]

Josh, here is what it looked like from the rear.

We told the seller the images taken with the lens looked like they were taken in a fog & he sent another lens without even asking to see what you have here, although they were offered.

 

[Josh66]

If'n it ain't made by Willy's-Overland, t'ain't a Jeep!!

I heard a rumor a while back that they were planning on bringing the Willy's name back... Not sure if there's any truth to that.


LOL, sorry for the derailment LightSpeed... Maybe round two of the test should get it's own thread...?

 

[Jcampbelll]

If I can add to the debate. Here is my test I had with UV and No UV filter. Wasn't going for a good picture as you can tell. It was shot on a tripod. The shutter speed is slightly different between the two but I don't think that will affect too much. First one no filter and second one with cheap filter on lens. Other then that they are exactly the same, no editing, same WB, shot in raw then into Lightroom 3 and exported to Jpeg. This is why I stopped using UV filters. It effects pictures big time when there are windows in the picture. You can see my fence in the reflection on the wall on the second one.

 

[usayit]

Some of us only use the best available filters...... you wouldnt happen to have one to test in the same conditions? I dont think many will disgree... cheap filters are no good.

it takes two seconds to remove a filter.. and very little time to learn when to remove them..


Again its a personal choice..... nothing is black and white.... weigh the adv and disadv.

 

[Jcampbelll]

Some of us only use the best available filters......

I am aware. Showing how my filter effected the image. If I have to worry about taking off the filter in certain situations, I'd rather not have it at all.

 

[Josh66]

it takes two seconds to remove a filter.. and very little time to learn when to remove them..

I think the problems start when people don't know when they need it and when they don't, so they just leave it on all the time - no matter what.

I think there is a time to use UV filters, and there is a time not to use them. I just believe that more often than not, you don't need it.

 

[Josh66]

I guess I think of filters a lot like I think of tools...

I have a lot of tools... I mean, a lot - lol. Tools are the single largest investment I have. I hate it when other people want to borrow my tools... The rule of thumb is - if you have to borrow it twice, you need to buy it. (Too many people just expect to be able to borrow whatever they need all the time though....)

Filters are the same... If I encounter a situation where I need a certain filter, well - there probably won't be anyone to borrow one from, but I'll know that I needed it and didn't get what I wanted because of it. If that happens more than twice - I have none to blame but myself.

The first time you need it, well - maybe that was a fluke... If you need it again after that, you need to buy one. If you need if a third time, and haven't bought one yet, too bad - you knew better.

 

[usayit]

yup... same as caps... some are religious about capping when not in use. I just feel they are a waste.. more often than not, they get in my way.


I once accidentally left my lens capped and ended up with a frame of a wonderful hue of black.

 

[LightSpeed]

Cares enough to try and make a point, but not enough to perform and submit a legitimate test.... he must work in government.

I think the statement was spot on.

Also, I think this dead horse has been beaten enough.p!nK

Oh well, here we go. First I'd like to thank those of you who participated in this civilly. I was really careful with this thread and asked that it be kept clean and civil. I know how heated this debate can get. Why it gets so heated, I'll never know, and can't explain. Next time around I'll use a tripod. I'll do it in an outdoors setting which is where I zap most of my shots. I'll post more than 2 images using the exact same settings, kind of like I did this time. And I assure you that this guy will NOT be able to tell the difference no matter how much horse talk, kicking and belittling he does. As you can see, He did not even take an educated stab at this before he condemned it. Do any of you see him putting anything here referencing the subject? Is he afraid? Did he not take a stab at which was which because he might be wrong? Was it that close? My! That surely has a telling tale," does it not?

I agree with many of you, in that it's a personal preference. I'm not here to force anyone to use a UV filter. I don't think I'm beating a dead horse either. On the other hand , those screaming image degradation with high quality UV filters, where there is none, are beating the horse. On top of that, they get MAD when someone disagrees. Now you tell me how silly that is. Nevermind, don't tell me. I already know. The fact of the matter is, no matter how raw this test was, none of the guru's DARED taking a guess at which was which. Why? Because they couldn't tell the difference and might have been wrong which seems to be a cardinal sin here. This speaks volumes for the UV filter, in my most humble opinion.

Now to address Mr. Pinks concerns which are really none of his bee's wax to begin with, but what the hell eh? I do not work for government. I am sort of an investor. I like shiny things like Au and Ag. I also own a bit of property all over the U.S. 120 acre tract here, 40 acres there. That kind of thing. Total, probably around 4000 acres give or take and a few homes mixed in there. I Gunsmith as a hobby and have done this for years. Nothing real serious mind you. Lots of trigger jobs, glass bedding, that kind of stuff. Every now and then, I'll lap a set of rings, stake a pin on a 10/22 and maybe a setback so the lead engages the rifling for greater cartridge stability. I mostly dabble around with the accuracy aspect of shooting and do not own a rifle that doesn't have a heavy barrel. The heavy barrel is a personal preference, kinda like the UV filter. I enjoy it kind of like photography.

Things I do not do: Assume I know something about someone who can buy and sell me with a signature. MrPink? Know what I mean?

Disclaimer : I used the term " Guru's" rather loosely. I'm confident that the fine gentlemen who posted here civilly know very well to whom this reference was made.

For the record. Image number 1 was captured WITHOUT a UV filter. Image number 2 was captured with use of a Marumi DHG UV filter. Stunningly enough it seems to have eliminated the little white specs ( probably caused by the light source/flash) while IMPROVING the image quality. Contrary to popular belief.

 

[ann]

I don't feel i am in the gru stage of my life, but i did't respond at first as I was thinking you would be redoing the test and would wait.

After reading these pages I will respond to that lens that was brutally "cleaned". If my lens looked like that I would have found a different interest.

On my monitor there is a color difference in those two test shots, but we all know monitors differ.

Pgriz made some excellent points and suggestions.

 

[Light Artisan]

Without reading this whole thread I'd have to say Image 2 looks faded with less detail and color.

 

[Chamelion 6]

I can't wait for your strict test to find out how many regular lens cleanings it takes to ruin your lens.

With the method you proclaimed in another thread, you get this quickly, not over a prolonged time.

Yes, but how do the pictures look?

I would maybe expect a slight loss of contrast, but other than that - I don't know. Even the contrast loss might not even be detectable...

But for me, that's not the real question here. The question should be does a damaged fron element like this produce better images that the same undamaged piece of glass through decent UV filter.

Which is preferable? Does it matter?

If the argument is tht the condition of this lens makes no difference in the quality of the images it produces, then how can you make the argument that a UV filter is going to degrade the image?