Some UV Filter truth.

[Overread]

Here are my thoughts;

Average general shooting - I'll use the lens hood and trust that to work most of the time. It works for branches, twigs and lemur fingers

In these conditions the chances of something coming into contact with the front element are small so I see no reason to add anything to give a light level of protection.

Now if I were shooting in conditions where light flying particles would impact the front of my lens (even with the hood) and thus require quick cleaning away then yes I would use a (pro grade) filter on the front of my lens to protect it. Otherwise I see no reason to have one attached to the lens - most of the time it won't cause much degradation (heck I use a 1.4TC often which has even more glass and that hardly causes much degradation) but I still don't feel the pressing need for the type of protection if offers*


* I also don't have the space in my budget to afford pro grade filters for protection either

 

[Chamelion 6]

What do you do with the old ones? I think it was Derrel that suggested using UV filters for coasters, lol.

Ever compare one of the old ones (say, the very first one) to one of the new ones?

Honestly, no. But that's not a bad idea actually. I just got back into photography recently and all my gear is new, but I think when I retire the UV's I'll set up a test between the new ones and the old ones and just keep grinding on the old ones till I can visibly tell the difference...

At the same time, I think sometime this week I'll try shooting something with and without the filters and see if I can spot the diference.

 

[Derrel]

Lens front elements are very fragile, delicate things, that must be protected at all costs. Take a look at this video, and see for yourself just how vulnerable the front element of even an economy $99 Canon EF lens is. It's simply shocking!

YouTube - Canon Glass

True maybe. But again, just cause you can't see the damage with the naked eye doesn't mean it's not there, and microscopic irregularities can effect the quality of the image.

Otherwise there would be no difference in a $99 budget lens and a $8000 high end piece of glass... After all, just looking at them, they look the same.

WRONG!!!!!!! Take a paper punch and punch out FIVE dots of opaque paper and use saliva to moisten them and get them to adhere to the front of your lens...shoot some photos...you will NOT even be able to tell that the items are on the front element. TRY IT yourself...then get back to us. Mmmkay?

In a related vein...see how filthy and disgusting a lens can be and still be a stellar performer...again....there's a lot of BS being put forth in this thread by a few people...

The Flashlight Test

 

[white]

Reading through this thread makes me think of all those old war pj's. Those guys beat the hell out of their cameras, and they still produced fantastic images.

Kind of amusing because the pinnacle of photography for most people here is doing senior portraits and weddings. Don't worry, folks, your overpriced toys will be fine even with a tiny bit of dust on the front element.

 

[Josh66]

Lens front elements are very fragile, delicate things, that must be protected at all costs. Take a look at this video, and see for yourself just how vulnerable the front element of even an economy $99 Canon EF lens is. It's simply shocking!

YouTube - Canon Glass

True maybe. But again, just cause you can't see the damage with the naked eye doesn't mean it's not there, and microscopic irregularities can effect the quality of the image.

Otherwise there would be no difference in a $99 budget lens and a $8000 high end piece of glass... After all, just looking at them, they look the same.

WRONG!!!!!!! Take a paper punch and punch out FIVE dots of opaque paper and use saliva to moisten them and get them to adhere to the front of your lens...shoot some photos...you will NOT even be able to tell that the items are on the front element. TRY IT yourself...then get back to us. Mmmkay?

I have seen worse than that ... but it did make me think about something. Do you think it would alter the bokeh?

My guess is that it would...

 

[Chamelion 6]

Lens front elements are very fragile, delicate things, that must be protected at all costs. Take a look at this video, and see for yourself just how vulnerable the front element of even an economy $99 Canon EF lens is. It's simply shocking!

YouTube - Canon Glass

True maybe. But again, just cause you can't see the damage with the naked eye doesn't mean it's not there, and microscopic irregularities can effect the quality of the image.

Otherwise there would be no difference in a $99 budget lens and a $8000 high end piece of glass... After all, just looking at them, they look the same.

WRONG!!!!!!! Take a paper punch and punch out FIVE dots of opaque paper and use saliva to moisten them and get them to adhere to the front of your lens...shoot some photos...you will NOT even be able to tell that the items are on the front element. TRY IT yourself...then get back to us. Mmmkay?

Ok.. But then let's put it on a bench so we can accurately measure any degredation and I think the results might differ. And if they don't, then the notion that better glass improves image quality and therefore a better investment than a new body is a myth.

I'm pretty sure my kit lens is superior to your white lens with a wad of wet toilet paper stuck to the front of it.

BTW.. Just for the record, I admitted early on I can't prove you're better off with a filter, that's my opinion. But even if you don't see the degredation I still believe it's there. All that stuff affects the way the light travels through the lens. And if that wad of wet toilet paper doesn't affect the image, then that piece of photographic quality glass sure as hell doesn't.

 

[Overread]

Degradation will be present - using filters - extension tubes - teleconverters - bits of paper with holes in it. Anything between the lens and the subject and the lens and the camera sensor will degrade the image quality away from the lenses optimal possible result.

However the debate is more if the cost of image quality loss is more or less than the gain one gets by using the device. In the shot above a teleconverter was used - it allowed me to get that shot and the cost to image quality was so marginal that I consider it worth using.
The same is true of filters - some consider the cost worth paying and others do not.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

So, did we discover the real "Truth" this thread was intended to put forth?


:roll:

 

[Overread]

So, did we discover the real "Truth" this thread was intended to put forth?


:roll:

If its to keep me mostly entertained and awake from 1am to 6am then its only got another 4 hours to keep running to fullfill its purpose

 

[Chamelion 6]

So, did we discover the real "Truth" this thread was intended to put forth?


:roll:

I knew the truth of it when I got here. I'm just waitin' fer y'all to catch up.

:thumbup:

 

[sobolik]

Reading through this thread makes me think of all those old war pj's. Those guys beat the hell out of their cameras, and they still produced fantastic images.

Kind of amusing because the pinnacle of photography for most people here is doing senior portraits and weddings. Don't worry, folks, your overpriced toys will be fine even with a tiny bit of dust on the front element.

"Kind of amusing because the pinnacle of photography for most people here is doing senior portraits and weddings. Don't worry, folks, your overpriced toys will be fine even with a tiny bit of (UV FILTER OVER) the front element."

Filter or dirt as as been adequately demonstrated is not the big deal that most make it out to be in terms of image quality. Me I don't worry about tracking dirt into my house but the one sweeping the floor thinks an ounce of prevention... But when it comes to lenses I subscribe to the ounce of prevention... Maybe because a filter is much cheaper if something should impact it.

 

[kundalini]

Those that use a UV filter for protection..... Fine.

Those that don't use a UV filter for protection..... Fine.


Those that spread mayo on the meat side and mustard on the veggie side are just plain crazy.

 

[usayit]

So, did we discover the real "Truth" this thread was intended to put forth?


:roll:

They can't handle the truth...... personal choice

 

[Overread]

Erose however till has a long way to go to take the Penguin Queens Smiley Queen title

 

[molested_cow]

Not to intentionally dig up this old epic thread, but since I am looking to get a protective filter for a newly bought used lens, I stumbled upon this thread.

I never knew much about image degradation due to UV filters, especially cheap filters. Since I started using my dad's SLR, the filters were already on the lens so I never questioned it. I don't know if the filters are coated or if they suck. So this is new to me and I am trying to learn more about it.

For me, dust is not the most horrible thing I worry about. It's dry, so you can blow or brush it off. What I want to protect the lens from is wet stuffs. I don't mean water spray or someone sneezing at the lens, but the grease or oil or whatever that's in the air that will stick to any surface exposed to the atmosphere. This is especially true in the urban when the exhaust from cars will lay a thick layer of grease on anything.

In Taipei, most people on the road commute on scooters. Almost everyone wears a mask, and it is not uncommon that by the time you are done with the commute, you see a "tan" mark on your face. That's not sun shine, that's the pollutants in the air.

I see that on the UV filters on my lens and I clean them once a while with lens cleaning fluids. I cannot imagine subjecting the front element of my lens to the harsh treatment of unknown chemical and grease in the air.

For image degradation, I guess I just have to learn when to remove the filters to avoid flares.

Now I just need to find the right UV filter with the right quality and price. I am looking for two filters now. One for the Nikon AF-D F2.8 20~35mm (77mm) and the other for AI-S F1.2 50mm (52mm). Any suggestion?