UV Filter Degrades Image Quality

[morganlashley]

Seems like the problem really solves itself: 1. For a walk-around lens where the probability of damage is high, a filter, even a cheap one, is probably ok as image quality is more a function of camera shake and focus/exposure issues. 2. For a high quality prime or zoom telephoto usually used on a tripod or with great care no filter is needed as the likelihood of damage is low. Problem solved.

[tonybeach]

Peter wrote:

 

"Unless you have 100% crops in a controlled test to prove that the filter degrades your images, I don't believe it. Getting more flare would be more believable."

 

My reply:

 

It's really quite simple as far as I'm concerned. I choose to not spend a small fortune on top quality filters that do not enhance my IQ, but have the very real potential to degrade it. For the cost of all those filters I could repair a lens if it got damaged -- or even replace some of them outright given that it would cost me $600 for top quality filters on every one of my lenses and another $200 for lenses I am currently planning on purchasing.

 

I'm not going to goof around removing a filter and then replacing it when the light is changing and things are happening; it would almost certainly cost me shots like these:

 

http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/recentfavorites/large/_AWB4399_1.jpg

 

http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/recentfavorites/large/_MAC8677_RML.jpg

 

http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/recentfavorites/large/AWB_2533_1.jpg

 

http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/recentfavorites/large/AWB_5408.jpg

[peter_cofran]

Anthony, those are beautiful shots. Sounds like we're in agreement that filters have little or no detrimental effects. I have to laugh at the number of ppl here who bemoan the damaging effects of inexpensive filters.

 

If I have the time I remove my filter when shooting into the sun but sometimes its more important to get the shot.

[ShunCheung]

The degree that a high-quality flter degrades a lens is like the amount of current the LCD frame counter draws from the battery when the camera is off. It is so negligible and unmeasurable that you are much better off spending your time improving your photo skills than worrying about such tiny, tiny items.

[d.olson]

Anthony, if these are your (poster child) shots declaring on how sharp they are without using a filter. Sorry, but what I'm seeing is not all that good. There is no real sharpness to them and I'm not seeing the big deal on IQ.

 

This, however is an example that mirrors an experience of mine.

http://www.planetneil.com/faq/filters.html

 

Not all of us are (sit on our butts) artsie fartsie photographer whanabies. Some of us actually get into the action. Out on the ice shooting figure skaters or on the track shooting off road GP scrambles one would be nuts not to have some protection on their glass.

 

Using hi end hoya filters and with my 20/15 eyesight I see no discernible differences when taking back to back pictures, filter on/filter off. I doubt you could either especially since you can't give any qualitative reasoning.

 

My own experience was shooting an off road scrambles. I was tracking a rider who just went past me and his tire flipped a rock hitting the front on my 70-200 2.8 VR. This was at the beginning of the days racing. In about 1.5 minutes I replaced the shattered filter, there was NO damage at all to the lens's front element, and I was able to continue shooting the rest of the day. If I didn't have the filter in place I would have been dead in the water and missing out on $1,700.00 in on site CD sales and another $700.00 in after event print sales. Plus I would have been without the use of this lens and the revenue it generates for weeks while under repair.

 

ANY time you touch the front element you ARE causing it harm. Period. It doesn't matter what you clean it with or the coatings it has.

 

Some, like me, just don't buy the smoke you're blowing with your unsupported busy theory's.

 

As my own experience goes back to the 1950's, yes, I'm an OF, and my Dad made a very good living as a professional photographer for his family from the 1930's until retirement in the 1970's some, like me, just don't buy the smoke you're blowing with your unsupported busy theory's. If you are going to make broad statements, at least support them with solid evidence.

 

Don<div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

Don,

 

Thanks for your perspective. Although I agree with you myself with regard to the filter issue, I

hope that there's a little bit more respectful way of communicating it. Everyone is so polite

around here, that's one of the reasons I enjoy visiting. Let's all keep it civil.

 

Thanks.

[nadopix]

Anytime I need a filter, I use Singh-Ray products. Still, those filters are glass and can potentially degrade image quality (although negligible with Singh-Ray). I choose not to use a UV filter for the sake of lens protection; just watch what you're doing and keep the lens safe. You'll have greater sharpness potential.

One theory I read last year claimed if a UV filter is broken the shrapnel can be thrown back into the lens elements. Even a broken front lens element (when not using a UV protective filter) is preferable to a broken filter. Always get your lens warranty. It's great protection.

[d.olson]

Peter, You are right. I apologize to all especially Anthony.

 

Don