To filter or not to filter

pixmedic · Mar 20, 2016

Yup. UV filters work great!
Not having any quality dampening issues with mine.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

Derrel · Mar 20, 2016

Zeikos--the best $1.99 filter when bought wholesale by the gross. For a mere $286.56 per gross, a camera shop or internet-ordering photo place could price those at $29.95 per filter, for a total receipts point of up to $4,312.80.

Of course, any decent camera salesman would gladly offer this type of magnificent UV filter at a hefty "discount" of $19.95 if he needed to close a deal and keep his accessories total to the company's minimum accessory level to collect a nice spiff.

Even if a lousy salesman discounted every one of a gross of $1.99 filters down to $19.95, the company's $286.56 wholesale investment would still rake in $ 2,872.80.

Zeikos....yeah, baby! Pure, coated optical glass, guaranteed safe for Perrier-grade use on all the continents.

480sparky · Mar 20, 2016

The_Traveler said:
.............The camera is a tool to make an image.
The camera is not the item of worship.

I nominate this for Post of the Year.

480sparky · Mar 20, 2016

Derrel said:
No need for a UV filter for protection. Buy a high-quality circular polarizer filter. Cheap polarizers can be pretty bad sharpness robbers. I used to sell photo and video equipment years ago. Filters were always sold as a way to, "Protect your investment." That is because we got a $12 spiff for selling a $2.29 filter for $29.95. Filters have exceptionally high markups on them.

If you think a filter "protects" a lens, that's not really true. YouTube has a nice video demo showing how incredibly WEAK a thin, flat plane sheet of optical glass is. In pretty well-controlled drop tests, the video maker shows that filters break quite easily when struck.

Watch as this fellow takes a broken Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF-II, the Iffy Fifty, and pounds on it. Do you think a filter is needed to protect against an accidental finger-smudge, or an errant dog tongue? Or against a mean old soda straw protruding from a McDonald's cup?

D-B-J · Mar 20, 2016

I use filters for 85% of what I shoot. I'm a huge proponent of the lee system, and if you have a few minutes you can read the blog post I'll attach below. It covers why I think people should use filters, what they're for, how they work, and includes some examples as to what you can achieve when using them.

Neutral Density Filters and Why You Need Them for Landscape Photography

Best,
Jake

robbins.photo · Mar 20, 2016

fmw said:
xenskhe said:

Nici have a read here:
Are digital sensors sensitive to UV?

If I use one on a digital it's to reduce UV. The potential loss of sharpness would be negligible among other factors that might be an influence (handshake, misfocus). If a camera and lens aren't on a strap around my neck/shoulder, they're (lens facing upward) in a shoulder bag, wrapped in a pashmina, and with a lens shade fitted.

Click to expand...

It might be valuable to know that a UV filter is just plain, clear, flat optical glass. All glass filters some UV light, including the glass in lens. No, UV filters have no effect on image quality except in very rare circumstances.

Sorry, but that simple is not true. Low cost UV filters do have a very noticeable loss in IQ on higher mp sensors. I can't speak to the high end UV filters because frankly I never purchased one to test. Considered it a ridiculous waste of money myself. But I can personally attest to the fact that your average UV filter does indeed degrade image quality on a 24mp sensor.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

fmw · Mar 20, 2016

OK, I'll make you a deal. I promise never to suggest the use UV filters on this forum if you will promise to leave me alone.

Overread · Mar 20, 2016

fmw said:
OK, I'll make you a deal. I promise never to suggest the use UV filters on this forum if you will promise to leave me alone.

If you are having problems with another member we recommend that you:
1) Use the ignore feature built into the site
2) Use the report feature to contact the admin/mods to air your concerns about the users behaviour
3) Contact a member of the moderating/admin staff via private messages/conversations to discuss the problem

In some instances simply discussing matters with the person in private yourself can also result in a resolution to the problem.

fmw · Mar 20, 2016

Thanks. I can take care of myself.

pixmedic · Mar 20, 2016

480sparky · Mar 20, 2016

I don't bother using filters for protection as there is no empirical evidence they prevent the spread of STDs.

Stradawhovious · Mar 21, 2016

Here is why I stopped using filters.

This is the front element of my Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 The damage is a little worse than it appears in this photo, and some of those scratches are deep. For obvious reasons I didn't pay a whole lot of money for it.

This lens takes fantastic photos. I have yet to see ANY evidence of those scratches on any of the images I have taken with it. (sample below)

Kicker... many of those scratches were caused by a damaged UV filter.

Here's a sample image from that 180mm with the scratchy front element.

astroNikon · Mar 21, 2016

Stradawhovious said:
Here is why I stopped using filters.

This is the front element of my Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 The damage is a little worse than it appears in this photo, and some of those scratches are deep. For obvious reasons I didn't pay a whole lot of money for it.

View attachment 118116

This lens takes fantastic photos. I have yet to see ANY evidence of those scratches on any of the images I have taken with it. (sample below)

Kicker... many of those scratches were caused by a damaged UV filter.

Here's a sample image from that 108mm with the scratchy front element.

View attachment 118117