You should Never use Any filters, except...

[rubbertree]

I wonder how many of us have actually experimented with and without filters to see if you can actually see a difference?

 

[spiralcity]

This argument has been brought up by many pros and there are many articles covering this topic.

I for one dont like to put any extra glass in front of my BEAUTIFUL lens glass. I do use ND and Polarizers on occasion, but very sparingly. I have gotten by for many years virtually filterless.

To each his own.

 

[Moglex]

I wonder how many of us have actually experimented with and without filters to see if you can actually see a difference?

I have used a lens chart to test +/- UV and polarising filters and found no difference whatsover.

However, that was in a situation where there was no danger of flare.

 

[Garbz]

I for one dont like to put any extra glass in front of my BEAUTIFUL lens glass. I do use ND and Polarizers on occasion, but very sparingly. I have gotten by for many years virtually filterless.

Just a question why you call your lens Beautiful, but not your filter? Some B+W filter probably have more beautifully manufactured glass than many lenses.

 

[spiralcity]

I for one dont like to put any extra glass in front of my BEAUTIFUL lens glass. I do use ND and Polarizers on occasion, but very sparingly. I have gotten by for many years virtually filterless.

Just a question why you call your lens Beautiful, but not your filter? Some B+W filter probably have more beautifully manufactured glass than many lenses.

Nope, any added glass to your lens will degrade your image. Your filters are BEAUTIFUL? Whens the last time you spent 1500.00 an a optically perfect filter? For that matter when the last time you spent 100.00 an an optical filter.

Filters are designed to serve mainly two catagories: Changing the proportion of colors in the light hitting the film or sensor, and by changing the behavior of the light waves themselves. Theres also a wide variety of specialty filters.

Show me one filter that has glass to match my Zeiss lenses.

I suggest experimenting and doing a bit more research. I really dont want to argue the point as I find it absurd.

 

[Moglex]

I for one dont like to put any extra glass in front of my BEAUTIFUL lens glass. I do use ND and Polarizers on occasion, but very sparingly. I have gotten by for many years virtually filterless.

Just a question why you call your lens Beautiful, but not your filter? Some B+W filter probably have more beautifully manufactured glass than many lenses.

Nope, any added glass to your lens will degrade your image. Your filters are BEAUTIFUL? Whens the last time you spent 1500.00 an a optically perfect filter? For that matter when the last time you spent 100.00 an an optical filter.

Show me one filter that has glass to match my Zeiss lenses.

Actually, making a flat piece of glass that just sits there is considerably easier than making a multielement assembly of pieces of curved glass that have to focus and, often, zoom.

The cost of top quality filters should mean that they are made of the very highest quailty optical standard glass and manufactured to the very lowest of tolerances.

I suggest experimenting and doing a bit more research. I really dont want to argue the point as I find it absurd.

Which do you find absurd? Using a filter or discussing using one?

 

[spiralcity]

Just a question why you call your lens Beautiful, but not your filter? Some B+W filter probably have more beautifully manufactured glass than many lenses.

Nope, any added glass to your lens will degrade your image. Your filters are BEAUTIFUL? Whens the last time you spent 1500.00 an a optically perfect filter? For that matter when the last time you spent 100.00 an an optical filter.

Show me one filter that has glass to match my Zeiss lenses.

Actually, making a flat piece of glass that just sits there is considerably easier than making a multielement assembly of pieces of curved glass that have to focus and, often, zoom.

The cost of top quality filters should mean that they are made of the very highest quailty optical standard glass and manufactured to the very lowest of tolerances.

I suggest experimenting and doing a bit more research. I really dont want to argue the point as I find it absurd.

Which do you find absurd? Using a filter or discussing using one?

Simply put: adding a filter will always degrade your image. I wont say any more on this.

It is absurd calling a filter a better optic than a pice of Zeiss glass. Discussing this is even more absurd. Use what you like and enjoy.

 

[Baaaark]

I thought haze was more due to humidity than UV.

I also think the amount a quality filter will degrade the image of a lens is negligible at best. Its very easy in this day in age to create a truly flat surface with no bend or diffraction.

 

[NateS]

I for one dont like to put any extra glass in front of my BEAUTIFUL lens glass. I do use ND and Polarizers on occasion, but very sparingly. I have gotten by for many years virtually filterless.

Just a question why you call your lens Beautiful, but not your filter? Some B+W filter probably have more beautifully manufactured glass than many lenses.

Nope, any added glass to your lens will degrade your image. Your filters are BEAUTIFUL? Whens the last time you spent 1500.00 an a optically perfect filter? For that matter when the last time you spent 100.00 an an optical filter.

Filters are designed to serve mainly two catagories: Changing the proportion of colors in the light hitting the film or sensor, and by changing the behavior of the light waves themselves. Theres also a wide variety of specialty filters.

Show me one filter that has glass to match my Zeiss lenses.

I suggest experimenting and doing a bit more research. I really dont want to argue the point as I find it absurd.

I guess the Nikon 500VR must have crappy IQ and contrast since it's got a whopping 14 elements. (More glass = less IQ according to what you said above).

People can sit here and argue that the high quality UV filters degrade IQ, but where's the real world proof? It may in fact degrade the IQ, but it might be less than what our eyes can see. Show me some 100% crops on controlled comparisons showing this major degradation caused by these filters (the good ones). I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Moglex]

Simply put: adding a filter will always degrade your image. I wont say any more on this.

That may be the case, but will it degrade it to a measurable extent on the film/image file?

It is absurd calling a filter a better optic than a pice of Zeiss glass.

I don't think anyone did.

Merely that the best examples are manufactured to an extremely high standard. Very likely to an equivalent standard to Carl Zeiss lenses.

Discussing this is even more absurd.

Yet you seem quite happy to.

 

[Joves]

Is grammar really that important?

Not really. I didn't raise the issue, I merely responded when I was incorrectly called out for improper usage. As a professor of English, I just could not let that pass. :mrgreen: I could cite examples and sources, but I'll let it go.

Anyway, back to the original topic. This is the passage from the book I was referring to:

The glass in a lens is not flat and the lens is composed of many different elements and element groups. This glass has a meniscus curve.
The idea of using glass with a meniscus curve is that light will pass through the lens and hit the sensor and then bounce straight out through the lens. Putting a filter, like a skylight filter that is generally a screw mount, can wreak havoc. The glass on the filter is most likely not a meniscus curve and light will pass through the filter, hit the sensor and then reflect back on the sensor instead of passing through the filter. Skylight and UV filters are also altering the wavelength of light that hits your sensor. The conversion of photons to pixels by the sensor is based on calculations from pure, natural light. In simple English, changing the light with a UV filter will affect contrast in the final image because the sensor has no way of knowing there is a UV filter on top of the lens. A polarizing filter is the only filter that is acceptable for digital, because achieving the effects of a polarizer in Lightroom or Photoshop is nearly impossible.
-The Photoshop Lightroom Workbook, by Seth Resnick & Jamie Spritzer (founders of D-65.com)

Actually not all of the curves are ground into a meniscus curve. The curvatures are determined on how you want to either focus or disperse the light at a particular point in its path.
Filters are considered flats and are easier to grind flat. As an example when I ground the mirror for my 8" f/6 I ended up with a 1/32 wave front which was difficult to achieve, when I ground my secondary flat I hit a 1/64 wave front. The technique for grinding the flat is more of a pain but the results are better and, it is easier to to have superior glass.
Filters unless you buy the cheap ones do not affect image quality as much as some people would have you believe. This is why you always get the best you can and, not sacrifice quality. Im tired of hearing the same disinformation being perpetuated in every forum I go to.
Personally I only use clear for protection to keep the dust off here where I live. And I never use UVs as they do introduce false color cast in many images. Digitals need no UV filtration.

 

[spiralcity]

Simply put: adding a filter will always degrade your image. I wont say any more on this.

That may be the case, but will it degrade it to a measurable extent on the film/image file?

It is absurd calling a filter a better optic than a pice of Zeiss glass.

I don't think anyone did.

Merely that the best examples are manufactured to an extremely high standard. Very likely to an equivalent standard to Carl Zeiss lenses.

Discussing this is even more absurd.

Yet you seem quite happy to.

The question was brought up to me so I answered. Do you have a problem with this?

Try trolling another post. I dont have time for you.

 

[kundalini]

Try trolling another post. I dont have time for you.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

How much time/effort did it take to cut and paste that response?

 

[JerryPH]

Simply put: adding a filter will always degrade your image. I wont say any more on this.

I think what is *the* important bottom line is by how much. If your filter protects your $3000 lens and degrades quality by less than 1%, I can live with that... and I bet all but the most anal photographers could too.

A good filter does protect the lens and is cheaper to replace than the front element... the best clear glass or UV filters on the market affect the shot so little as to make no real negative visible effects on the final result... and under those conditions, that is where I always choose to use filters on my lenses. In weddings, on the beach, in dusty conditions, I say it is foolish not to have a quality filter on the front of your lens.

Ask the person who just had to pay another $2000 becuase they wanted to save $200.

 

[Jon_Are]

most anal photographers...

Wow, some guys really specialize. :lmao:

Jon