Filter caused poor quality

Arkady said:
F*** Me!

Canon telephoto lenses don't seem to like filters - no Nikon user ever makes posts like this...
Click to expand...

Yes, they do!

I think you need to read this:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/886919

...and especially the blog post here with images:
http://desmond-downs.blogspot.com/2010/04/cheap-filters-and-bokeh.html

Which shows EXACTLY THE SAME type of bokeh banding with a Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S as seen with the canon lenses.

The blog photos also show filters causing:

...softness with a Nikon 180 2.8.
...flare with Nikon 180mm 2.8.
...softness with Tamron 18-270VC
...softness with 70-300VR lens
...weird bokeh with Nikon 70-200VR

That's enough for me to stop using filters unless I'm in a dirty or sandy environment. :thumbs:
 
^^ thats a very interesting test. I think what it proves is dont use a cheap UV / protection filter, as the Hoya Pro 1 didnt seem to make much of a difference at all. I'd like to see a test involving all types of filters as well.

Personally I dont use UV filters, but I do use some rather expensive CPL's! Not noticed any loss of IQ with the CPL's but they are Hoya Pro 1 DMC filters, so I wouldnt expect to.
 
They definitely do cause ghosting too, simply because they are a flat piece of glass. You can't see all of the ghosting through the viewfinder either because the sensor itself reflects some light which travels back through the lens, bounces off the flat filter and back to the sensor.
Ghosting is most apparent when a scene has bright points of light.
 
odd jim said:
. I'd like to see a test involving all types of filters as well.

Personally I dont use UV filters, but I do use some rather expensive CPL's! Not noticed any loss of IQ with the CPL's but they are Hoya Pro 1 DMC filters, so I wouldnt expect to.
Click to expand...

................"C-PL".............and "UV"......
 
^ very comprehensive, thanks! Does show a difference between the cheap and not so cheap! I suppose its the same with all types of equipment, you do get what you pay for.
 
I never bothered going past line 1...
"The Effect of CHEAP filters..." blah blah blah...

"...CHEAP filters and bokeh..."

Which is something I've always said: cheap filters are rubbish - you might as well use a sawn-off milk bottle.

Buy expensive ones and you're fine for 99% of shooting situations...

If you want a good filter, then buy the Nikon NC-series or Hoya-Pro if you can't abide the thought of a Nikon filter on your Canon lenses - and use a lens-hood!
As the filter is mounted further foward and more exposed, then of course it'll catch more light and cause possible flare and ghosting than it would without being there... duh!!!
 
Arkady said:
As the filter is mounted further foward and more exposed, then of course it'll catch more light and cause possible flare and ghosting than it would without being there... duh!!!
Click to expand...

Ghosting has nothing to do with extraneous light falling on the filter (which would cause flare). The light which is ghosted originates from the subject scene.
 
Whatever...I was speaking in general terms - you seem to be spoiling for an argument, so you do what you think is best for you...

I've explained as patiently and as often as I can why filters per se are not the 'bad-guy' in this scenario...

Optically-speaking, cheap anything will affect your photography adversely...buying better quality (expensive) mitigates against this to some extent.

Nikon's older L37C UV filters caused less than 3% reduction in transmitted light at all wavelengths (apart from in the UV range, obviously), the newer NC series less than 2%...neither of them caused any abberations, ghosting or flare if used properly with a lens hood.

I can live with that - if you can't, then fine...they're your lenses, do what you like.
 
Arkady said:
Whatever...I was speaking in general terms - you seem to be spoiling for an argument, so you do what you think is best for you...
Click to expand...

No argument here. I was just clarifying a term for the benefit of everyone. No need to get defensive. :thumbs:
Do what is best for you.
 
User Name said:
No argument here. I was just clarifying a term for the benefit of everyone. No need to get defensive. :thumbs:
Do what is best for you.
Click to expand...

Apologies in that case, but by introducing links concerning cheap filters while quoting my earlier statements, you appeared to attempting to undermine my contention that 'good' quality filters have no appreciable affect on IQ under conditions already described...
 
Byker28i said:
As for falling onto rock, that's also pretty rare to get it exactly in that spot so isn't really a valid argument. I doubt whether 1mm or less of glass would offer much protection in that case.
Click to expand...

A hoya HD might well do. They're very hard indeed.
 
Arkady said:
Apologies in that case, but by introducing links concerning cheap filters while quoting my earlier statements, you appeared to attempting to undermine my contention that 'good' quality filters have no appreciable affect on IQ under conditions already described...
Click to expand...

That was definitely not my intention at all.
It is interesting to note that these cheap filters produce weird bokeh effects
and can affect all sorts of lenses independent of manufacturer.
 
I use these on my Nikon 16-85mm, and my Tokina 50-135mm, and never seem to have had any quality issues at all, but then I'm fairly inexperienced so may not know what I'm talking about.
 
all very interesting ,,,:bonk:
 
erm..........I've been using a Hoya CPL filter that comes in a green box.........not the Pro or Multi-coated, so definitely not the best in the range, and i've never seen any loss in IQ? Or am I just not looking in the right places? All I've noticed is richer colours in the sky and water etc.

What kind of effect do these "cheap" filters supposedly give?
 
lauy said:
erm..........I've been using a Hoya CPL filter that comes in a green box.........not the Pro or Multi-coated, so definitely not the best in the range, and i've never seen any loss in IQ? Or am I just not looking in the right places? All I've noticed is richer colours in the sky and water etc.

What kind of effect do these "cheap" filters supposedly give?
Click to expand...

Wobbly lines and odd-looking bokeh in out-of-focus areas that have straight lines, such as grass stalks etc...

Since they're in the 'out-of-focus' areas, most people either don't notice or simply don't care, but others like the out-of-focus bits to be as well-rendered as possible...
 
hmm......does this definitely happen with ALL cheap (green box) Hoya CPL filters? I guess I will have to do some tests to see, can't say I ever noticed any wobbly lines though.....
 
lauy said:
hmm......does this definitely happen with ALL cheap (green box) Hoya CPL filters? I guess I will have to do some tests to see, can't say I ever noticed any wobbly lines though.....
Click to expand...

Seems to happen with longer focal lengths, i.e. 200+mm and more so with Canon optics because (maybe?) of the iris-shape of the aperture blades...
Jury's still out on that one though...
 
Interesting.....I've only been using mine on the 17-55 and 10-20.....I don't use a filter on the 70-200. Maybe why I've not noticed it.....
 
  • No UV or so-called 'protective' filter can improve image quality.
  • All UV and 'protective' filters will cause some image degradation.
  • The amount of degradation tends to reduce as filter cost increases.
  • Degradation with expensive filters, in some situations, can be small enough to not be noticed.
 
the 300/4 has a specific issue with filters I can't remember if it was UV or circ pol but squizza had a thread on it a while back do a search cos canon bob was v useful and cleared it all up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top