UV FILTERS

P

philduncan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
82
Edit My Images
No
Do they affect the picture quality in any way. I have a Hoya Pro on 70-200 cost about£60 hope not !!! Just bought a cheapie for my new 17-55 is it worth it ?
 
In my opinion they may well in some situations affect image quality. I've always used one on my Tamron 28-75 and have been happy with the image quality i've got.

But just yesterday I was bored so I did a couple of tests with the filter on and off in a studio environment, and under controlled conditions there was definitely a noticeable difference in contrast and sharpness with and without the filter. To be honest I was actually surprised at just how much of a difference it made.

Now I realise that this was a certain type of shooting, and one where you are much more likely to notice differences in images, but I was genuinely taken aback by the difference, and I have since taken the filter off, and will be interested to see how it affects images outside the studio.
 
I tend to leave my UV filters on, especially when used outdoors, for protecting the main glass rather than for any other reason
 
They do affect image quality and the cheaper they are the more effect they have.

I don't use them, can't see the point in 99% of shooting situations. If I were going into a sandstorm then I night consider it or maybe somewhere where I know I'll be drinking and there's a chance of spillage, actually I wouldn't as I don't own any but you get the gist.
 
philduncan said:
Do they affect the picture quality in any way. I have a Hoya Pro on 70-200 cost about£60 hope not !!! Just bought a cheapie for my new 17-55 is it worth it ?
Click to expand...

No - high quality filters do not affect quality cheap single or uncoated filters do.
 
Yes they do impact image quality. They will reduce contrast and increase flare.

Are they worth it.. IMO, no. Ive never damaged a lens in 10 years and I've never used uv/protection filters.
Just be careful and sensible and you should never damage your front element.

Use the lens hoods ( I recall canon don't supply them as standard which is a farce) and you will have enough protection from bumps and knocks. If you know you are going into an environment where things might be thrown at you, ie a warzone or a rally, the yes, it makes more sense. Anywhere else in normal conditions is pointless in my opinion.
 
philduncan said:
Do they affect the picture quality in any way. I have a Hoya Pro on 70-200 cost about£60 hope not !!! Just bought a cheapie for my new 17-55 is it worth it ?
Click to expand...

There are frequent filter/no filter threads on this forum.
Some folk say use a filter others say don't. Read all the threads and you are unlikely to get a definitive answer.
I suggest you do whatever you are comfortable with :thumbs:
 
In strongly back-lit scenes, even the best multicoated filters will increase flare, lowering contrast. And with bright lights in the frame, like street lights/headlights or sunsets, you'll get double-image ghosting.

Sharpness is less of a problem except with longer focal lengths that greatly magnify any slight imperfections.
 
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
 
hollis_f said:
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
Click to expand...

Post of the thread! If not the year. Quoted for truth.
 
I'm won't use a 'piece of glass' in front of my expensive glass. Lens companies research and do their best to reduce flare, aberration, fringing etc etc. So, I don't believe that there is a filter that can improve image quality.
 
I don't use them either. If you are that worried about protection the glass use a lens hood which will do a better job of protection the glass and will improve the images not degrade them.
 
I have 2 lenses which won't take a front mounted filter - one can't even be fitted with a hood (when a lens covers a 180 degree angle of view in every direction, a hood would literally be in the way!) and the other has a non removeable hood. I have a couple of UV filters for when there's air borne debris or water around but in conditions like that, I'm more likely to bag the SLR kit (dust and sand can get sucked into lenses when focussing or zooming as well as hitting the front element) and use my waterproof compact instead. As an amateur, I'm unwilling to risk wrecking any equipment for the sake of a shot.
 
Sounds like I'm going to have to chuck all my UV filters!
 
I fitted a uv filter on my fuji x100 purely for protection as I didnt fancy scratching the only lens it has. I found that the ghosting is so bad with any type of fiter that im taking it off. Any light source in dim conditions causes green ghost upside down reflections.

If anyone knows of a filter that reduces these effects to an acceptable degree I may consider one. But the lens hood is now its main protection. (may get a 49mm pinch lens cap for travel)
 
philduncan said:
Do they affect the picture quality in any way. I have a Hoya Pro on 70-200 cost about£60 hope not !!! Just bought a cheapie for my new 17-55 is it worth it ?
Click to expand...

One thing is for sure ... they won't improve image quality :)

A search on UV Filters will reveal any number of similar threads which should keep you busy for a week or two :D
 
Don't Canon recommend a filter on various lenses to complete the weather sealing? That's part of the reason I use them, and use hoya hd to reduce any image quality issues.

Main reason would be protection, dropped an old camera and filter meant it was only a £60 repair, plus a new filter. That and I'm more comfortable cleaning a filter in a bus on travels :-)
 
Minimal use of filters used here, after spending lots of money on lens, I do not want to degrade my images. Plus I use the lens hood as protection.
 
HoppyUK said:
IMO too much irrelevant science and not enough attention to the real world issues with UV filters, ie flare and ghosting, and loss of sharpness with long focal lengths.

All filters suffer some these effects, in certain situations, but good quality multi-coated filters suffer least.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. It's also incorrect on some of the science (some due to oversimplification, some due to misunderstandings).
 
jmc41 said:
Don't Canon recommend a filter on various lenses to complete the weather sealing? That's part of the reason I use them, and use hoya hd to reduce any image quality issues.

Main reason would be protection, dropped an old camera and filter meant it was only a £60 repair, plus a new filter. That and I'm more comfortable cleaning a filter in a bus on travels :-)
Click to expand...

Chances are the filter made no difference protection wise. They are generally cheaply made (even the expensive ones) and their flimsey construction isn't designed to take impacts.

However, if you'd used a lens hood it's likely neither would have needed repair...
 
There are also reports of filters shattering in a fall and scratching the lens, when with a hood everything would probably have survived unscathed.
 
Having been a keen photographer for over 40 years the only filters i use are polarizers and Grads. Have never used UV's and have never had any damage to the front element of any lens. Because of this i have no idea if they affect image quality.
 
I had a few good quality UV filters, 1 for each lens I had, and when shooting with a 550D I hardly noticed any softness. However, I upgraded to a 7D and the results on all my lenses were severely affected. I was on the point of returning the 7D when I shot some wildlife pics on my Canon 100-400 L without a filter and the difference was amazing. From that day onwards the only time I'll use a UV filter is if it's a very dusty or wet environment I'm shooting in.

I have a Hoya Pro1 CPL and a Kenko CPL that I use occasionally but that's it. I think it's nearly a year since I used a UV filter but I do make sure I keep the lens hood on all the time for added protection. The only lens I don't use a hood on is my Canon 100 L Macro as it usually has a ringflash attached when I'm shooting with it.
 
Last edited:
The loss in quality is even more significant when you shoot at long focal lengths (you also magnify the defects in the filter) so it's not surprising you saw that in your 100-400.
 
qlite50 said:
Sounds like I'm going to have to chuck all my UV filters!
Click to expand...

Keep them, but only for genuine protection - dusty conditions, sea spray etc... you don't want to be cleaning a front element any more than you need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top