UV filters on a Canon 100mm Macro

[sarah_fox]

<p>Then you're not interested in my generous offer?</p>

[phule]

<p>Of course not, Sarah. I use my equipment every day and don't have time to wait for you to throw straw men at it. </p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Pity... It would have been spendid.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>You don't say if you're getting the $500 or $1,000 L version. The question is: should you protect a $500 or $1,000 investment with a $40 or $50 UV filter? (Rough prices for lenses and Hoya S-HMC UV filters at B&H.) I think the obvious answer is yes.</p>

<p>People who lecture that you should never use UV filters because they degrade images have either a) never used quality filters, or b) never actually tested with those filters on and off. I've tested Hoya S-HMC filters a dozen times and they do not degrade the image. Based on light transmission specifications I would say the same is true for Hoya HD and B+W filters as well.</p>

<p>People who say hoods offer enough protection shoot in gentle conditions. That's fine for them if they never shoot beyond the studio or a pleasant park on a sunny day. I do not limit myself to gentle conditions or weather, and those of us who do not would be fools if we didn't protect our lenses from rain, salt water spray, wind driven sand, etc. A couple of my filters already have scratches/marks and are near replacement. But for the filters those marks would be on the front elements of $500-$1,500 lenses.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that hoods for some lenses offer poor protection (UWA lenses and mid range zooms), that some lenses require front filters to complete weather sealing, and that even for some non weather sealed lenses if you cover the front element you have dramatically increased it's ability to survive an accidental splash of water.</p>

<p>So yes, if I were buying either Canon 100mm macro, I would protect it with a Hoya S-HMC or HD filter.</p>

[ilya_e]

<blockquote>

<p>and those of us who do not would be fools if we didn't protect our lenses from rain, salt water spray, wind driven sand, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You probably did not read all previous posts completely. This is exactly when I would advise using a protection filter. If you mostly shoot in similar conditions then you would probably leave it on all the time. I personally find myself in similar situations probably once a month. But the rest of the time I shoot in how you said it in "pleasant parks on sunny days" so it wold be foolish to leave the filter on all the time. I can tell you right now that I never forced my cameras through tree branches or bushes and would never drag it on the ground. Apparently some people do, yet they are not worried about scratching the camera and lens (and damaging either one) but they do worry about protecting front element. Funny.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I dunno about you, Daniel Lee Taylor, but I am constantly amused by some commentators here who consistently twist the meaning of previous commentary and then make remarks upon it . . .<br>

I re read the posts here and it seems that you and I are the only two who mention using a macro lens in “rough conditions” like crawling through bushes or such like.</p>

<p>Yet I can glean no mention, inference or statement in either of our posts that either of us <strong><em>“</em></strong><strong><em>are not worried about scratching the camera and lens (and damaging either one)”</em></strong> . . . but rather <em>we just were just commenting upon how we afford the best protection on the front bit.</em></p>

<p>Funny how these “twisters of commentary” seem to be the same people all the time . . . maybe I am misinterpreting the meaning of the comment . . . as I said . . . I dunno?</p>

<p>WW</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>But the rest of the time I shoot in how you said it in "pleasant parks on sunny days" so it wold be foolish to leave the filter on all the time.</em></p>

<p>If you're using a high quality filter there's no degradation of image quality. Why is it foolish then to leave it on all the time?</p>

<p>Instead it seems foolish to constantly take it on and off. Even in gentle conditions it might save your glass. You can drop a lens, lose a lens cap, or have an unfortunate front element impact on the best of days. Not to mention you're taking the risk of dropping or losing the filter every time you play with it. What's the point?</p>

<p>People avoid protective filters or constantly change them on the assumption that they're losing image quality from the filter. I've looked for this loss a dozen times with Hoya S-HMC filters and cannot find it. Half the time it's hard to tell that there's actually glass in the filter ring! Their light transmission rate is that high.</p>

<p>Even the minor impact to sharpness and contrast from the next step down (Hoya HMC or manufacturer filters) is probably meaningless in the digital age, a couple points difference when applying local contrast enhancement and sharpening. I only use S-HMC and wouldn't personally buy and use lesser filters, but the truth is I could probably take a shot with both tiers and post process them to an identical level of IQ.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>If you're using a high quality filter there's no degradation of image quality. Why is it foolish then to leave it on all the time?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two (general) shooting scenarios where I usually remove the filter:</p>

<p>1. Inside – and or Outside at Night – as generally I shoot without Flash and in environments with multiple light sources like reception rooms etc or at night multiple light sources in city environs.<br>

<strong>Ghost Images</strong> and <strong>Veiling Flare</strong> can both be exasserbated with a Filter – even good filters which I use – this is worse with some lenses than others - I have learnt which they are</p>

<p>2. When outside and shooting into the sun – again for the same reasons as above, but mnainly because of Veiling Flare – and I do shoot a lot into the sun.</p>

<p>But as I am on the seaboard I have to balance these facts with the fact that I shoot a lot at the Beach – and I usually always use a filter when shooting there.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[ilya_e]

<blockquote>

<p>Instead it seems foolish to constantly take it on and off</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I said before I do it probably once a month so putting it on and taking it off does not bother me at all. I use other filters more often than that (Vari-ND and polarizer) and if I follow your advice then I would have to stack all of my filters and never take them off. Imagine how much protection that would give me. As for the safety issue I would say that a lot really depends on a person. In about 30 years that I've been using cameras I did not scratch or break one lens yet (knock on wood). In fact my equipment looks like as if it was purchased yesterday (hoods are the exceptions). Counting out forcing the camera through bushes and dragging on the ground it went through a lot of nasty conditions and hood was all I ever needed. But that just me, if you feel that buying and having UV on all the time makes you feel better then why not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I re read the posts here and it seems that you and I are the only two who mention using a macro lens in “rough conditions” like crawling through bushes or such like</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Go back to first page and see what I said about using UV filters. Sorry I did not mention lizards and ground levels. That would probably make you understand a bit more.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>That would probably make you understand a bit more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did . . . and . . . no it doesn't . . . I still didn't mention anything about how I treat or care after my cameras and lenses . . . which is the comment of yours, which I was referencing, specifically:<br /><br />"I can tell you right now that I never forced my cameras through tree branches or bushes and would never drag it on the ground. Apparently some people do, <strong><em>yet they are not worried about scratching the camera and lens (and damaging either one) but they do worry about protecting front element. Funny.</em></strong>"</p>

[ilya_e]

<blockquote>

<p>Or laying on the ground crawling around chasing lizards . . .<br />At ground level the sticks and twigs easily get beyond the protection of the lens hood:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok, it happens, people forget stuff. Here, let me remind you. Quit smoking crack, it's bad for your head.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I'd reckon you need to take up English Lessons, Honey, because your comprehension and interpretation of the written word fails elementary school standards . . . still no mention of how one is concerned about camera and lens protection or that there is no other means by which one does so. . . </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree smoking crack is bad for your head: Is that comment from you a result of personal experience? </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Wow. Is it the weather?</p>

<p>We seem to be a little touchy today, eh?</p>

<p>"I know you are, but what am I?" sort of comments, and so quickly too. A time-out seems called for.</p>

<p>This whole thread could be deleted with little loss to the world at large.</p>

<p>If you people don't straighten out, I'll be forced to go the maximum punishment.</p>

<p>Yes, if I need to, I'll post my Tru-Scru filter again!</p>

[William Michael]

<p>No not the weather . . . but anyway straight to the bottom line:<br>

<strong>Truce</strong> - Hatchet is buried this end.</p>

<p>Thanks, JDM, it is always nice to hear your voice.<br>

The end.</p>

 

[ilya_e]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd reckon you need to take up English Lessons, Honey, because your comprehension and interpretation of the written word fails elementary school standards . . . </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Honey my ass. When somebody talks about crawling and branches getting inside the hood it would be logical that the lens and body could get scratched or damaged as well. Even an idiot could understand that. But apparently not you. Are you that retarded? Damn, how can you operate the camera? Do you even understand what the manual says?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>still no mention of how one is concerned about camera and lens protection or that there is no other means by which one does so. . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, that was the smartest thing you've said today.</p>

[sjgcit]

<p>Your real problem is a lack of confidence in your ability to take reasonable care of your lenses or your belief that you are "naturally" careless. At least that's what I get from your post.</p>

<p>In stead of addressing those things, you're putting a piece of glass between your lens and the world. It offers no real protection that a hood won't. Any filter ( including clear filters with super-duper coatings ) increase the likelihood of lens flare and contrast reduction.</p>

<p>Don't believe that ? Have a look here :<br>

http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html</p>

<p>Pay particular attention to the flare tests.</p>

<p>My view is that there are times when you have to use a filter. But unless you have to, don't.</p>

<p>Getting a quality macro lens in which every component is carefully designed to function as a whole to the highest specifications and then bolting on a piece of generic filter that's not designed to match anything seems pretty daft to me. But it is your lens and camera.</p>

 

[jim_j2]

<p>Good Grief!<br>

All over whether to use a filter or not!</p>

<p>It's a "personal preference," type of choice, and a "choice" it is!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Any filter ( including clear filters with super-duper coatings ) increase the likelihood of lens flare and contrast reduction.<br />Don't believe that ? Have a look here :<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html" target="_blank">http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html</a><br />Pay particular attention to the flare tests.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I frankly find this rather funny. Yes, this was an excellent analysis of a broad variety of filters, and it gave me considerable pause about some of the B+W filters. It also gave me much warmer thoughts about the Hoya HMC. However, we apparently read these results very differently. I suppose we read what we want into these sorts of tests. Perhaps you're fixated on the Tiffen results, where Tiffen filters are correctly revealed as having window-glass quality. I don't care about those results. I don't use Tiffen filters. I'm frankly looking at the results for the filters I use -- mostly Hoya Pro-1:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=113&roz=17">http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=113&roz=17</a></p>

<p>Now, when I pay particular attention to the flare tests, per your suggestion, honestly I can't see much, and they tested under some extremely challenging conditions. The image defects from the lens itself (i.e. without filter) are far, far, FAR more significant. They used probably an "average" lens for this analysis. I'd have loved to have seen the tests repeated with a better lens. I think what I carry away from the flare tests is that the quality of the Pro-1 filter greatly exceeds the quality of the lens.</p>

<p>I frankly see no reason to get so freaked out about the filter over the lens, when I've not yet seen any discussion on this list -- EVER -- of the relative merits of a lens based on the number of elements in its optical path. You'd think, based on this silly discussion, that people would be popping champaigne corks over any new lens design that manages to eliminate an element. You'd also think that in all the equally stupid fights over primes vs. zooms, SOMEONE in the prime camp would declare, "... but primes have fewer elements than zooms, which is why they produce less flair and have superior sharpness!" But nobody ever makes that point. And yet a single piece of glass -- ONE piece of high-quality, precision ground, multicoated optical glass is so roundly vilified.</p>

<p>I think most people have lost all perspective over this issue.</p>

<p>The ONLY good arguments I've heard in opposition to the use of protective filters are these:</p>

<p>(1) Sometimes the lens isn't valuable enough to justify the cost of a good filter (e.g. the 18-55 IS or the 50/1.8)</p>

<p>(2) The cost of a front element replacement is considerably less than an investment in protective filters -- if you can do without your lens while it's in the shop, that is.</p>

<p>Why haven't these points been raised in this thread? (Perhaps they have, and I just don't remember. If they've been raised, they've certainly been drowned out by all the noise.)</p>

<p>And then the ultimate idiocy is that the sophisticated filterless photographers on this list love to defend that we can shoot excellent pictures with dirty and even broken lenses. Is this some sort of economic argument? Don't bother with filters, because they cost money, and don't clean your lens because it takes time and materials? It seems strange to me that someone can get so freaked out about the deleterious effects of a filter and not have a complete psychological meltdown over a speck of dust.</p>

<p>PERSPECTIVE, people! Geesh!</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks, JDM, it is always nice to hear your voice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Irony? but I am still keeping the option to post the Tru-Scru. Mind you.<br>

(cries of oh no, anything but that!)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>In stead of addressing those things, you're putting a piece of glass between your lens and the world. It offers no real protection that a hood won't.</em></p>

<p>Say that to me after spending a day shooting in a desert sand storm, or at the beach with waves crashing next to you and salt water spraying all over the place.<em> </em></p>

<p><em>Pay particular attention to the flare tests.</em></p>

<p>What am I paying attention to? The fact that the filters I recommend (top tier Hoya and B+W) show virtually no difference in flare? Thanks for offering another source to confirm what I've said for years.</p>

<p>If you open up the Hoya HMC, Pro1, S-HMC, and B+W MRC tests side by side you get this:</p>

<p>* Building shot: no real difference between the filters and the no filter shot. Some nudging of the camera is apparent between shots which accounts for slight differences in flare position.</p>

<p>* Trees shot: a little bit more flare on the filter shots, varying filter to filter. However, it's obvious that the shots were made at different times and the no filter shot is shared across all pages. With the sun going down even 1 minute will alter the characteristics of the flare. Nudging the camera by a hair can do the same. I'm not convinced that the filters are actually causing additional flare rather than the flare shifting as the sun and camera move. Indeed, you can just about tell the order in which the shots were taken. Sure enough the filter taken the closest in time/position to the no filter shot looks the best, while the filter with the greatest time/position gap looks the worst. If the test had been more carefully controlled I bet you would see no difference between these filters and the no filter shot.</p>

<p>* Street lamp shot: no real difference between the filters and the no filter shot. Some nudging of the camera is apparent between shots which accounts for slight differences in flare position.</p>

<p>Early on I would routinely test with the filter on and off when shooting into a light source and I never once saw a significant difference in overall contrast or flare so long as I controlled for both camera position and light angle (i.e. not waiting 5 minutes between the shots when shooting into the sun). I now avoid such nonsense as worrying about whether or not a top tier filter is destroying my image. Hoya top tier filters and B+W MRC filters simply do not degrade the image, and the link you gave confirms this.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[ But nobody ever makes that point.]]</p>

<p>This is complete nonsense.</p>

<p>[[i think most people have lost all perspective over this issue.]]</p>

<p>Pot? The Kettle is on line 1 returning your call. He's got more info about some of that highly deadly, diamond-strong pollen he has seen floating around.</p>

<p> </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Yes, this was an excellent analysis of a broad variety of filters, and it gave me considerable pause about some of the B+W filters.</em></p>

<p>I always forget to write B+W MRC filters. They have a couple tiers themselves and you want the MRC filters if you buy from them.</p>

<p><em>I frankly see no reason to get so freaked out about the filter over the lens, when I've not yet seen any discussion on this list -- EVER -- of the relative merits of a lens based on the number of elements in its optical path.</em></p>

<p>LOL! Good point Sarah. Occasionally someone will mention that a prime lens has more contrast than a zoom, but people certainly aren't avoiding zooms or discussing the issue to death as they do filters. If top tier filters destroyed images as claimed then people should be avoiding zooms and IS lenses like the plague.</p>

<p><em>And then the ultimate idiocy is that the sophisticated filterless photographers on this list love to defend that we can shoot excellent pictures with dirty and even broken lenses.</em></p>

<p>LOL again! On one hand you shouldn't use filters because they degrade the image, on the other you don't need filters because even a dirty scratched lens doesn't noticeably degrade the image. Amazing.</p>

<p>Stephen's link demonstrated the exact opposite of his point. There is no difference between shooting with a top tier filter vs no filter. Filters most certainly do offer greater protection for those of us who shoot in rough conditions. (And rough conditions can simply be shooting street with an UWA and a shallow hood. It's easy to get bumped.) There's no reason to worry about slapping a top tier filter on your lens and leaving it there. It's not going to make a visible difference.</p>

<p>I tend to shoot a lot of beach sunsets where I'm shooting directly into the sun and exposure blending for DR. I've given up taking the filter off because it makes no difference. I will however nudge the camera around or wait a few minutes because the angle of the light, even a degree or two, can make a huge difference. Water spray on the lens will also make a huge difference which means if I'm shooting low near the water I'm constantly wiping the lens. No way I'm doing that without a filter in place.</p>

<p>If I'm not seeing a quality loss in my sunset shots then there's no hope of seeing a quality loss in less demanding conditions.</p>

[lester_wareham]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4161651">Stephen Geary</a> , Nov 11, 2010; 04:59 a.m.<br>

Don't believe that ? Have a look here :<br /><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html" target="_blank">http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html</a><br>

It looked to me like there was no real difference between a good filter and the naked lens, I also found this with my own tests (these are linked in the FAQ in my earlier message).<br>

So this kind of goes against your argument.<br>

It does however show why the OP should use a high quality filter.<br>

Indeed the poor OP has probably run off long ago with all the point scoring going on in the thread.<br>

We all have out own views on this issue but please lets all try and be objective and leave our own prejudices out of it. <br>

Give the OP the access to the measured data and let him draw his own conclusions.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>LOL! Good point Sarah. Occasionally someone will mention that a prime lens has more contrast than a zoom, but people certainly aren't avoiding zooms or discussing the issue to death as they do filters. If top tier filters destroyed images as claimed then people should be avoiding zooms and IS lenses like the plague.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Haha! OK, I'm going on record right here: The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, with its 23 elements, absolutely can't be as good a lens as the 75-300 f/4-5.6 III, which has a mere 13 elements and therefore 20 fewer reflecting surfaces! Those of you with the inferior 70-200/2.8L IS II may send me your lenses for proper disposal. As a public service to my Canon colleagues, I will replace them with the superior 75-300 III. The 5 mm loss on the short end will never be missed, in contrast to the extra 100 mm on the long end and the superior clarity that 20 fewer reflecting surfaces can produce! Can't do without the IS? I'll throw in a tripod. (You should be using one anyway, instead of that slacker IS nonsense.) :-)</p>

<p>BTW, I'm also still accepting Pro-1 filters of any size for proper disposal, according to accepted environmental standards.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Haha! OK, I'm going on record right here: The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, with its 23 elements, absolutely can't be as good a lens as the 75-300 f/4-5.6 III, which has a mere 13 elements and therefore 20 fewer reflecting surfaces! Those of you with the inferior 70-200/2.8L IS II may send me your lenses for proper disposal.</em></p>

<p>You're on fire today Sarah :-)</p>

<p>Feel free to contact me if you receive too many lenses or Pro1 filters to properly dispose. I would be more than willing to help out. For the environment of course!</p>