UV Filters as protection...Does quality really matter?

[cgipson1]

Doesn't that vary, on quality of lens? Serious question...as I don't know. I would think the the cheaper lenses are more easily scratched up than the fancier ones. Or are they all the same quality in the front?

If you have a kit lens and put a cheap filter on it.. you just degraded the IQ of a lens that already had less than perfect IQ. If you take a top end lens.. and put a cheap filter on it.. you just turned your expensive lens into a kit lens IQ wise!

Glass is glass.. but the better lenses do have better anti-scratch coatings than the kit lenses do...

I was talking physical quality charlie, not image quality. Everyone keeps revolving back to image quality. I was speaking literally of the quality of materials...as in the more expensive lenses being more "scratchproof" for lack of better terms.

That was covered by my last line in that post....

 

[GreggS]

"The Ultimate Guide To Neutral Density Filters" by Peter Hill | RedBubble

thanks!

 

[Infidel]

...I hate to ask. Really...in fear of WWIII breaking out...but can all of the arguments this thread has seen apply to the selection of an ND filter kit for my 17-40? I would like a good set of NDs that won't kill IQ for those mid-day shoots/landscape/motion shots. So again...does quality really matter? Or will any filter apply to that equation of "great glass + any filter = no longer great glass"?

The people who buy expensive filters will most assuredly jump in and claim that the quality of the filter makes a large difference, probably following up with something like "why would you put a $30 filter in front of a $1500 lens?"...they're probably correct, but this is the internet and some people need to justify their large outlays of cash (this last comment is not directed toward anyone in this thread nor anyone in particular).

Ask yourself: are the scenes you shoot filled with enough fine detail, and is your equipment resolving enough to capture it, and are you skilled enough to get the most out of your equipment, and does it all matter enough to you, to pay the price difference?

 

[Ernicus]

"The Ultimate Guide To Neutral Density Filters" by Peter Hill | RedBubble

thanks!

Np, it was gifted to me here on the forums when I was asking about ND filters. It's a great read, so I try to pass it along as well.

 

[Robin Usagani]

hmm.. maybe I should post a few pictures by my 2nd shooter who uses UV filter. I keep seeing purple dots on the photos and there wasnt even that much glare from the sun. I have to do it when I get home.

 

[Ernicus]

hmm.. maybe I should post a few pictures by my 2nd shooter who uses UV filter. I keep seeing purple dots on the photos and there wasnt even that much glare from the sun. I have to do it when I get home.

Or you could realize that no one here is negating the loss in IQ or debating that they improve IQ and not even bother.

 

[Dao]

I remembered a forum member who bought a fast telephoto zoom lens thought the lens was defective because of the photos were not as sharp as he expected. Turn out that it was the filter.

 

[Marcelle]

if you have L lenses, don't bother with the filters, they will just reduce the optical quality... anyway those optics are tropicalized and weather resistant
I use L lenses and use only filters for polarizing or effects

 

[unpopular]

I've never had a problem with my B+W's. They blocked UV haze very effectively without introducing excessive glare. However, anything you introduce between the sensor and the subject is another place for reflections.

If you use a UV filter, use it for what hey are designed for - to cut UV haze, not as a protector. As others have said, they don't do much good. Glass will scratch glass. Furthermore, you'd be surprised how much abuse a lens can take before significantly affecting image quality. While a scratch on the front element might be embarrassing and unsightly, it's unlikely to really show up.

 

[GreggS]

if you have L lenses, don't bother with the filters, they will just reduce the optical quality... anyway those optics are tropicalized and weather resistant
I use L lenses and use only filters for polarizing or effects

Yea, I've decided to just find a good, high quality ND filter for my 17-40. I'm looking at the Hoya ND x400 thanks to the article posted by Ernicus at "The Ultimate Guide To Neutral Density Filters" by Peter Hill | RedBubble. GREAT read.

 

[Buckster]

I remembered a forum member who bought a fast telephoto zoom lens thought the lens was defective because of the photos were not as sharp as he expected. Turn out that it was the filter.

We've actually had a lot of those types of threads over time here, and another one pops up often enough tht it stays relevant to this conversation. Someone posts that they've got errant flare, ghosting, newton rings, or some other weird abberation, and someone suggests they remove the UV filter. Voila! Problem gone.

I used to use them religiously, even have my own personal horror story of my 100-400 L lens flying off the front seat while in it's case in an emergency brake situation, then finding when I opened the case that the filter was broken but the front element was fine. At the time, I thanked the fillter, which was so deformed afterward that it was almost impossible to remove - a local mechanic with a heavy duty rubber belt filter wrench and four strong hands gripping lens and wrench finally managed it, but not without worry we would twist the lens to pieces in the process.

Later, while doing a sensor cleaning and looking closely for any remaining dust in the image, I noticed newton rings throughout. Troubleshooting my way to the source of the problem, I finally remo ved the UV filter, and the problem went away. I checked my other lenses, found an assortment of problems from newton rings to ghosting to flaring, all of which went away when the filters were removed.

I will never put a UV filter in front of a lens on a digital camera again. I get my protection with a lens hood and a modicum of care. I don't worry about a small scratch here or there because it won't affent my image quality to any extent, especially not compared to the known degradation in IIQ of a UV filter.

 

[Buckster]

I've never had a problem with my B+W's. They blocked UV haze very effectively without introducing excessive glare. However, anything you introduce between the sensor and the subject is another place for reflections.

If you use a UV filter, use it for what hey are designed for - to cut UV haze, not as a protector. As others have said, they don't do much good. Glass will scratch glass. Furthermore, you'd be surprised how much abuse a lens can take before significantly affecting image quality. While a scratch on the front element might be embarrassing and unsightly, it's unlikely to really show up.

Only film needs UV filter. Digital cameras have a UV filter built in already.

 

[unpopular]

^ that I didn't know, but makes sense. Also, sensors are far more IR sensitive than UV sensitive, while film is more UV sensitive than IR sensitive. I haven't used any type of filter since I stopped shooting film, actually.

 

[mjhoward]

I just watched a few vids on youtube, and they kicked a soccerball at a camera sending it smashing into a wall, lol... While the lens did not break or scratch, the plastic that you screw filters into did, so you could never use any filters with that lens again...when they put the uv filter on it and smashed it...the filter didnt break and the lens was still operational in terms of being able to use filters again.

For every case like that, there are probably 100 cases where either the filter breaks and screws up the front element OR the threads on the filter get all jammed up and you can't remove the filter you had on it.

BTW, you keep stating that your argument isn't about image quality but shouldn't it be? I mean, if you don't care about image quality why even bother with a DSLR or a lens that you feel is worthy of "protecting"? What's the point of having a Ferrari if you never take it out of the garage for fear of the paint getting chipped. Just seems like a waste to me.

 

[Ernicus]

I just watched a few vids on youtube, and they kicked a soccerball at a camera sending it smashing into a wall, lol... While the lens did not break or scratch, the plastic that you screw filters into did, so you could never use any filters with that lens again...when they put the uv filter on it and smashed it...the filter didnt break and the lens was still operational in terms of being able to use filters again.

For every case like that, there are probably 100 cases where either the filter breaks and screws up the front element OR the threads on the filter get all jammed up and you can't remove the filter you had on it.

BTW, you keep stating that your argument isn't about image quality but shouldn't it be? I mean, if you don't care about image quality why even bother with a DSLR or a lens that you feel is worthy of "protecting"? What's the point of having a Ferrari if you never take it out of the garage for fear of the paint getting chipped. Just seems like a waste to me.

It's funny how folks are saying they seen where broken uv filters cause damage to the glass yet keith posted up a video of a hammer not affecting the glass. Just find that funny a bit.

as to this part "BTW, you keep stating that your argument isn't about image quality but shouldn't it be?" no...not when the OP didn't ask about that. I try not to give my opinion on things not asked...some people find it annoying. It's hard to do...but I try. It helps from derailing a thread too.