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

[TCampbell]

There are a *few* of Canon's L series lenses whether Canon's manual will tell you that in order to "complete the weather seal" you have to thread on a front filter -- they don't care which filter. But this is only IF you are actually trying to use the lens in an environment where having a weather seal is important (and how often do you actually do that?)

Otherwise... the only filters you need are the filters that actually do something useful (like polarizers, neutral density filters, etc.) UV filters just block UV light. The problem is... the camera already has an internal filter blocking the UV light. A VERY high quality UV filter will actually block _most_ of the UV light and will block almost _none_ of the non-UV light. A VERY high quality filter will also frequently have anti-reflective coatings to reduce the possibility of flare and ghosting caused by the filter.

A cheap UV filter won't have any of those things... many cheap filters don't actually do a very good job of blocking the UV light (even though that's supposed to be their primary purposes -- but I guess it doesn't matter since the camera already has a good UV filter built-in) but what they MIGHT be doing is actually blocking some of the visible light and worse... blocking the visible spectrum in a non-uniform way (which creates a color-cast on your images.). And then of course there's the deterioration to the optical quality and possibility of flare and ghosting.

The bottom line is: You probably don't need ANY "protective" filter unless you happen to own one of the very few L series lenses whose documentation states that a filter is required to complete the weather seal. A filter won't do much to help. And while a really good filter probably won't degrade your image quality in any noticeable way... a cheap filter certainly will.

You bought a high-end camera and high end glass so you can take high quality images. Why would you throw a cheap piece of glass into the image path that reduces the quality? If you buy a filter, buy a GOOD filter. But I'd suggest only buying filters that perform a useful function -- not a UV filter.

 

[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.

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.

Apparently you missed the part where the sharp claw (similar to sharp shards of glass) left scratches.

 

[TCampbell]

...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?

Quality only matters if it matters to YOU. There are people who are completely content with the image quality from their camera phone. I see that you bought a 5D II and a few nice L series lenses... which tells me that you're probably not content with the quality of the image you'd get out of your camera phone and you're not shooting with cheap glass.

There actually are a few examples on the net that show the difference between budget filters and high-end filters. Is the cheap filter degrading image quality? Yes. They stack a bunch of cheap filters on the lens and you can see that the quality quickly becomes horrible (by stacking filters they're making it VERY noticeable.) When they stack up the good filters, there's a reduction in quality too... but not nearly as much. I've also come across pages where they they carefully measure the bandpass of the filter (e.g. test the full spectrum of light at each wavelength and note the percentage of light that actually passes through the filter at that specific wavelength -- then depict the results as a graph. You can clearly see in some of these tests that the filters fail to block what they're suppose to black and tragically block what they're NOT supposed to block... and then don't bother to block the light in a particularly even way -- such that certain wavelengths transmit much better than others... causes a color cast on the resulting image.

So yes... quality does matter in that they can objectively perform tests to prove that those high dollar filters actually ARE better than the cheap ones (you're not being scammed). HOWEVER... whether or not YOU would notice the difference without precisely calibrated specialized scientific measuring instruments or stacking a pile of filters on the lens just to really amplify the effect probably depends on you.

 

[Ernicus]

@ mjhoward

apparently you missed the part where I really give a chit. however, I did see smudges where the person was wiping away with their finger.. however the video did not go into detail wether those were perm scratches, marks on the glass that could or could not be wiped away, or anything but a hammer hitting glass and it not breaking. I only commented to it as I thought it was a bit comical. I doubt highly that anyone would compare the claw end of a hammer's destructive force to a shards of glass's destructive force...as a shard of glass would ultimately give away as it too would break or crumble...and and the claw end of a hammer would not.

anymore nonsense to throw in the mix or can we let this thread die now as the OP got his answers some time ago.

awful argumentative today aren't we?

 

[SCraig]

To each their own. I've been using UV filters on the front of every lens I've owned for a lot of years and don't intend to change now. To me it's insurance. In MY opinion they are worthwhile TO ME and I'll continue to use them on MY lenses.

 

[Buckster]

@ mjhoward

apparently you missed the part where I really give a chit. however, I did see smudges where the person was wiping away with their finger.. however the video did not go into detail wether those were perm scratches, marks on the glass that could or could not be wiped away, or anything but a hammer hitting glass and it not breaking. I only commented to it as I thought it was a bit comical. I doubt highly that anyone would compare the claw end of a hammer's destructive force to a shards of glass's destructive force...as a shard of glass would ultimately give away as it too would break or crumble...and and the claw end of a hammer would not.

anymore nonsense to throw in the mix or can we let this thread die now as the OP got his answers some time ago.

awful argumentative today aren't we?

Not that it will likely make any difference to you since you seem to already have your mind made up, regardless of anything anyone in this thread has to say or show you or cite to the contrary, but we actually had someone on this forum not long ago post an example where a shattered filter scratched their front element in the process of breaking.

 

[Ernicus]

@ mjhoward

apparently you missed the part where I really give a chit. however, I did see smudges where the person was wiping away with their finger.. however the video did not go into detail wether those were perm scratches, marks on the glass that could or could not be wiped away, or anything but a hammer hitting glass and it not breaking. I only commented to it as I thought it was a bit comical. I doubt highly that anyone would compare the claw end of a hammer's destructive force to a shards of glass's destructive force...as a shard of glass would ultimately give away as it too would break or crumble...and and the claw end of a hammer would not.

anymore nonsense to throw in the mix or can we let this thread die now as the OP got his answers some time ago.

awful argumentative today aren't we?

Not that it will likely make any difference to you since you seem to already have your mind made up, regardless of anything anyone in this thread has to say or show you or cite to the contrary, but we actually had someone on this forum not long ago post an example where a shattered filter scratched their front element in the process of breaking.

I'm not saying it can't happen, and sorry if it appears as such...I just find some arguments interesting and at times comical. I think I have already stated that I don't use them as I use a hood and care for my lenses to where I feel I don't need that protection.

I agree that for every example either one way or another, a person can find a hundred examples to contradict it. You yourself even posted to where a filter "saved" your lens. So it sort of solidifies my point I was making that a person should not state that it can't or is useless...which was done here in this thread by others, when you yourself proved it was not useless. Again...only in terms of "protection".

 

[Buckster]

To each their own. I've been using UV filters on the front of every lens I've owned for a lot of years and don't intend to change now. To me it's insurance. In MY opinion they are worthwhile TO ME and I'll continue to use them on MY lenses.

I suppose obstinence has its place, even in light of evidence that contradicts it.

Feel free to do as YOU like with YOUR gear for YOUR peace of mind to satisfy YOUR opinion.

 

[GreggS]

"What I Learned Today" by GreggS
UV Filters vs. No UV Filters is a more volatile topic than politics and religion. And apparently is religion to some.

 

[Ernicus]

"What I Learned Today" by GreggS
UV Filters vs. No UV Filters is a more volatile topic than politics and religion. And apparently is religion to some.

Lmao

It's funny how it seems you cant have any middleground here lately, it's either way left or way right....in the middle is too hard I guess.

 

[JG_Coleman]

"What I Learned Today" by GreggS
UV Filters vs. No UV Filters is a more volatile topic than politics and religion. And apparently is religion to some.

LMAO... happens every time when this subject pops up.

 

[SCraig]

I suppose obstinence has its place, even in light of evidence that contradicts it.

Feel free to do as YOU like with YOUR gear for YOUR peace of mind to satisfy YOUR opinion.

Obstinence has nothing to do with it. While I've seen questionable evidence that they are of no benefit I've also seen personal evidence to their merits. I would have ruined a Zuiko 50mm lens once had it not had a UV filter on it. That's good enough for me.

 

[JG_Coleman]

Well, folks, that just about wraps up the action-packed 58th monthly installment of "UV Filters: Friend or Foe?", the hippest debate series that keeps us coming back for more every time! Thanks for stopping by and be sure to tune-in next month for the super-predictable fun that we've all come to love!

 

[kundalini]

Well, folks, that just about wraps up the action-packed 58th monthly installment of "UV Filters: Friend or Foe?", the hippest debate series that keeps us coming back for more every time! Thanks for stopping by and be sure to tune-in next month for the super-predictable fun that we've all come to love!

Ohhh, wait, wait, I wanna get in. Can I?

..... but this is the internet and some people need to justify their large outlays of cash

Ummm, well now that you mention it....

Here's about $10K worth of glass that I use. None, let me say that again, NONE of those are used with a UV filter attached.

However, I do use high quality B+W and Hoya CPL and ND filters. Cokin for GND.

 

[Trever1t]

To the OP, it boils down to this. Don't use a UV filter if you want the best optical quality from your lens. Don't expect the UV filter to offer any protection from damage OTHER THAN an agressivly corrosive enviroment like in the surfline of a beach where I would suggest a CPL or ND filter. Hey you did ask a question, you don't need t listen to the responses but trust me, people will be less likely to offer assistance if you disregard their advice as babble.

To those that use filters, I was once you. No worries, when you're ready to go nekkid it's as simple as un-screwing yourself