UV filter or not UV filter

hollis_f said:
!00-400 at 400mm. 100% crops from the centre of the images. No Filter - Hoya HD - Cheap No-Name

Filter%20Comparison%20100-400.jpg



It's obvious to me why I shouldn't use a filter, even a high-class expensive one.
Click to expand...
Similar to a lot of tests I have done Frank :thumbs:
 
From what I've read, long focal lengths are more prone to problems from UV Filters.
400mm is pretty long

Your findings match my own tests with a poor quality filter, but I've done other tests where I can't find a visual difference.
Hence I do advocate people doing your own tests and making their own decision about whether to use a UV filer, or not.

For me the acid test is file size.
Take two shots with and without the UV filter, both on highest quality JPEG.
The one with the filter will have a smaller file size; it compresses better because it has less fine detail and less contrast.
The file sizes will differ even when there is no obvious visible difference.
For me that's enough to never use a filter.

My analogy is editing in JPEG - we all know we lose quality every time we press save because of compression artifacts - but is it significant enough for anyone to notice?
Perceived wisdom is that you don't edit JPEGs...
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
For me the acid test is file size.
Take two shots with and without the UV filter, both on highest quality JPEG.
The one with the filter will have a smaller file size; it compresses better because it has less fine detail and less contrast.
The file sizes will differ even when there is no obvious visible difference.
For me that's enough to never use a filter.

.
Click to expand...
Interesting, never heard of this before (although I never shoot in jpeg). I may try this when I have some spare time, not that I will ever be putting a filter on my long lens anyway (except for the test lol)
 
Last edited:
Hi buddy,

The uv filter doubles up as protection aswell, grab a hoya pro 1d of ebay there only £25 for a 50 1.4 canon usm.

Worth every penny and its better to be safe.

Gregg
 
IMHO - also works with Canon RAW files as they use lossless compression.
But be safe and only try this test with JPEG.

The lossless compression is why the Canon RAW files are only 2 to 3 times the size of the out of camera JPEG.
And why the Canon RAW file sizes vary with content; an image with a lot of white sky will be a very small file.
My last landscape shoot the RAW files were between 20Mb and 35Mb.
Ever noticed that when you get better glass, you fill your card faster (more detail, better contrast, bigger files) .

On the other hand...
Q - Ever wondered why the RAW files from some manufacturers are HUGE ?
A - They don't compress their RAW files.

P.S. For you Nikonites.... I think the Nikon RAW compression ratios are similar to Canon.
 
Gregory Hicks said:
Hi buddy,

The uv filter doubles up as protection aswell, grab a hoya pro 1d of ebay there only £25 for a 50 1.4 canon usm.

Worth every penny and its better to be safe.

Gregg
Click to expand...

The glass in that lens is so recessed into the plastic that it doesn't need a hood, never mind a filter.
Most other lenses would be better examples!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top