Took off UV filter, walaa.. crisp pictures

keith204 · Dec 29, 2007

I was frustrated at getting OOF pictures with my 70-200 lens. After reading reviews saying it's actually pretty sharp, I finally got fed up today and took off the UV filter just to try. WOW it is so much sharper.

I remember back to Sabbath999's post about cheap UV filters...but this is a Hoya. Any ideas? Do I just fork over another fifty-something bucks, or do I just not use one?

Sideburns · Dec 29, 2007

Is it the S-HMC?
Perhaps if it's not that good, go for the B+W or something...

Alex_B · Dec 29, 2007

probably a horrible filter, or it was just way too dirty.

soylentgreen · Dec 29, 2007

Hmmmmm. May be the filter. Your lens is only as good as the cheapest piece of glass. I had a cheapo Sunpak on my EF 180 f/3.5 L macro that came with it so I used it. What a POS. I thought "ohh it's just clear glass so what's the problem?" Was actually told that by an employee at the local camera shop. Needless to say, I no longer seek his advice. I now use Hoya Pro1 Digital HMC filters for my lenses and i still get pretty darn clear images with or without them.

Garbz · Dec 29, 2007

Hoya have about 4 models of the same filter, and brand name means nothing when the brand produces crap filters for a consumer market

The Standards are ****, the HMC are better, but still poor. The S-HMC are neutral, and aside from a single ghost image when shooting into the light I haven't found it to noticeably degrade anything. The Pro1 filters are just sold on hype, and for this money you may as well get a B+W.

I highly recommend you swap all your filters for S-HMC or pick a different brand.

keith204 · Dec 30, 2007

ok it's probably a cheap filter.

Combined with fingerprints.......

Nah.. I was wheeling and dealing with the company I bought my 70-200 from and convinced them to throw in a Hoya UV filter... I'll bet you anything they didn't throw in a nice one. No biggie... free

Trenton Romulox · Dec 30, 2007

I was using a $20 UV filter on my 18-135, took it off, what a difference. I have a $30 polarizer on my 180mm, I'm gonna take it off probably. Sick of it. Filters can be really handicapping. Of course, less-quality for more protection? Yeah...I'd stick with a filter on your most expensive glass.

kundalini · Dec 30, 2007

Trenton Romulox said:
I was using a $20 UV filter on my 18-135, took it off, what a difference. I have a $30 polarizer on my 180mm, I'm gonna take it off probably. Sick of it. Filters can be really handicapping. Of course, less-quality for more protection? Yeah...I'd stick with a filter on your most expensive glass.

Try $165 for a slim B+W CPL. None of my 'good' glass gets a UV filter at this time. The lens hoods are always attached though and I am extremely careful.

RacePhoto · Dec 30, 2007

Where I shoot, what I shoot and mostly outdoors, I wouldn't be without a UV filter. Just being safe.

Now these threads are demanding that I do a lens test with my next new L lens. With and without the UV filter. Because once I check a lens with a magnifying light and make sure it's perfectly spotless, the filter goes on for the life of the lens. So I wouldn't want to take it off again.

Since I've always had a UV or Skylight on every lens, on every camera for about 40 years, and I never had sharpness problems, I've got to see this for myself. Of course the obvious, I'm getting older, my eyes aren't as good, maybe I can't see the loss of detail! :lol:

My old film cameras and lenses were never as good as what I shoot now, so another reason why I wouldn't have seen anything wrong.

I just can't believe that a filter would make a easily seen difference, unless it has creeping crud on it, or it's like some old wavy window glass or has delaminated.

Filters are a glass sandwich, with the filter material in the middle. Those expensive filters are probably all glass, which is very costly to produce.

Iron Flatline · Dec 30, 2007

No filters on my SLR lenses (except an occasional ND), just lens hoods.

lostprophet · Dec 30, 2007

B+W = FTW

Trenton Romulox · Dec 30, 2007

kundalini said:
Try $165 for a slim B+W CPL. None of my 'good' glass gets a UV filter at this time. The lens hoods are always attached though and I am extremely careful.

Damn, $165 to get less-quality. That's no good. I feel like my glass is protected with the lens hood anyways. I mean, dust removal is the only time my glass gets touched, and that's a careful process. Or at least, it's supposed to be.

Garbz · Dec 30, 2007

In a perfect world yes. I'm not going to sell any of you the idea of a UV filter. Murphy's law will do that for you.

I've never touched the front element of my 80-200 f/2.8 and always use it with a hood. But that didn't stop a volleyball from splashing water all over the front of it, and it would stop the neighbours lawnmower from flinging a rock at it, or some kid in a park tripping over and smacking it with something sharp they were holding it at the time.

By all means it's a risk you take. A risk I don't, for a measly $100. And you're kidding yourself if a B+W filter is going to cost you quality in your photos.

Joves · Dec 30, 2007

Garbz said:
In a perfect world yes. I'm not going to sell any of you the idea of a UV filter. Murphy's law will do that for you.

I've never touched the front element of my 80-200 f/2.8 and always use it with a hood. But that didn't stop a volleyball from splashing water all over the front of it, and it would stop the neighbours lawnmower from flinging a rock at it, or some kid in a park tripping over and smacking it with something sharp they were holding it at the time.

By all means it's a risk you take. A risk I don't, for a measly $100. And you're kidding yourself if a B+W filter is going to cost you quality in your photos.

I agree I have had a few things make it past the lense hoods. The problem with most is they dont buy quality filters, for their quality glass.

sabbath999 · Dec 30, 2007

I had a Hoya HMC on my 70-200 which I was not pleased with (although they are certainly much better than the cheap Hoyas), and when I replaced it with B+W and I noticed a HUGE increase in sharpness.

The first time I shot this $1700 lens a zebra slupped up a huge glob of mud that splashed right through the lens hood and BLAMMO right smack in the middle of my lens.

Man am I glad that I had a filter on it!