Hoppe Posted December 13, 2016 Share #1 Posted December 13, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just watched a Youtube vdo from Tony Northrup. He said there is no need to use an UVa filter as it actually degrades an inmage quality. What do you guys think on that ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 Hi Hoppe, Take a look here Do we really need to use an UVa filter on our lenses?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Posted December 13, 2016 Share #2 Posted December 13, 2016 Do we really need to use an UVa filter on our lenses? No. When cameras and lenses used to be bought in camera stores, the typical scene was that the salesman — never saw any salesladies, as they would have been called — at the end of the transaction would say, "Now you need a UV filter to protect your lens." Consider, though, that profit margins on cameras and lenses were low, but very high on filters. In any case, with coated lenses there is absolutely no need for a UV filter, which just adds another set of glass surfaces to add to flare when you shoot into the light. Now, if you use sofa covers to protect the beautiful fabric of a new sofa, like my Aunt Constance did, then go ahead and buy UV filters — but come to think of it I don't have an Aunt Constance. _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted December 13, 2016 Share #3 Posted December 13, 2016 Try one and decide. I don't use them unless I am concerned about the front element being damaged. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemgb Posted December 13, 2016 Share #4 Posted December 13, 2016 I use a high quality filter UV or Digital filter to protect my lenses. I have never noticed a degradation in image quality and $100 filter is a whole lot cheaper than a lens element. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 13, 2016 Share #5 Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) The most common wisdom around here is that guys who use filters are sissies. However, in my opinion, unless you're shooting a 1 million dollar project and need the ultimate quality, a protection filter is always a good idea. I can't count the number of times I have seen lenses with nicked or scratched front elements being sold for half the price by the macho guys who don't use filters. Needless to mention that I will only buy a used lens from a sissy filter user. By the way, the best filters are currently the B+W protection with nano coatings. The coatings are harder than the glass itself and are water repellent. Easy to clean and almost impossible to scratch with normal cleaning. Edited December 13, 2016 by edwardkaraa 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marchyman Posted December 13, 2016 Share #6 Posted December 13, 2016 Some lenses, my Canon 24-70 for example, require a filter for full weather sealing. I keep a filter on that lens when the camera is packed. 99% of the time I remove the filter with the lens cap when I'm going to shoot. Since the Q isn't weather sealed anyway... The only filter I've used with my Q is a polarizer. I sometimes wish I had some ND filters for the Q but not quite often enough to actually buy some Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 13, 2016 Share #7 Posted December 13, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The use of UV filters may be debatable. The use of polarizers and ND filters is not. You can not simulate those. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted December 13, 2016 Share #8 Posted December 13, 2016 Adding extra surfaces for the light to bounce on makes something to the image and its quality. Using a UV when shooting at night brings more reflections in to play than without an filter. But than again, it might not really matter. Use it if you want to, it is your choice. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 13, 2016 Share #9 Posted December 13, 2016 What a load of nonsense! Really is that guy in the video serious? "Here's an example of the polariser being used to reduce reflections, but I think the photo without the filter looks better because the subject is more shiny" LOL or "I had to spend a minute putting the filter on, oohh its so much bother!" He didn't say what brand of filter he was using but if they're 'cheap plastic' filters then he's not making a fair assessment. Doesn't he realise you can buy excellent optical quality filters instead? Do I want to shoot 100 images and faff around in photoshop to merge them into one image, or do I want to use a filter and take one shot? If I want to reduce reflections on a subject I'll try a polariser. If I want the subject to look 'shiny' that's up to me. His only example to show how a filter degrades IQ was a shot straight into the sunlight to show how the filter generated some more flare - but if you take that kind of shot presumably because you want the flare effect then surely the filtered shot is BETTER! What an idiot! 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 13, 2016 Share #10 Posted December 13, 2016 polarizer is the one filter that cannot be simulated. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 13, 2016 Share #11 Posted December 13, 2016 2 posts and a silly question. Please! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herve5 Posted December 13, 2016 Share #12 Posted December 13, 2016 I never found any optical improvement from adding what is basically a flat glass slice in front of my lenses. But I always did it, because it protects the said lenses from dust, scratches, shocks. Given the cost of my Leica Q, I didn't even step outside the store without it. And, this allows me to transport it in a padded bag without the lens cover, both instantly ready and safe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 13, 2016 Share #13 Posted December 13, 2016 What a load of nonsense! Really is that guy in the video serious? "Here's an example of the polariser being used to reduce reflections, but I think the photo without the filter looks better because the subject is more shiny" LOL or "I had to spend a minute putting the filter on, oohh its so much bother!" He didn't say what brand of filter he was using but if they're 'cheap plastic' filters then he's not making a fair assessment. Doesn't he realise you can buy excellent optical quality filters instead? Do I want to shoot 100 images and faff around in photoshop to merge them into one image, or do I want to use a filter and take one shot? If I want to reduce reflections on a subject I'll try a polariser. If I want the subject to look 'shiny' that's up to me. His only example to show how a filter degrades IQ was a shot straight into the sunlight to show how the filter generated some more flare - but if you take that kind of shot presumably because you want the flare effect then surely the filtered shot is BETTER! What an idiot! Nonesense galore indeed - "if you use a polarizer filter in low light it takes two stops away" Yeah - sure. Who is going to use a polarizing filter at night or indoors? "you can simulate it in software - it is easy" ? Never in life And you have to use a polarizer at approx. ninety degrees off the sun, not straight into it - that won't work. So what is all this faff about flare...? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 13, 2016 Share #14 Posted December 13, 2016 Some people take lens protection to the extreme. And that nonsense about simulating a polarizing filter is utter nonsense. The guy should be ashamed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 15, 2016 Share #15 Posted December 15, 2016 I use UV or protective filters because I hate using lens caps. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucisPictor Posted December 15, 2016 Share #16 Posted December 15, 2016 (edited) polarizer is the one filter that cannot be simulated. And ND-Filters. Try to shoot with f/1.4 (for separation/bokeh reasons) in bright sunlight... OK, that's not often the case, but still true. But if you want to shoot a long exposure photo (let's say 30 Sec), how would you "simulate" that? Edited December 15, 2016 by LucisPictor Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoppe Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share #17 Posted January 12, 2017 Found interesting articles written by Roger N. Clark. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/ http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/protection_filters/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted January 20, 2017 Share #18 Posted January 20, 2017 You certainly needed them with slide film, Ektachrome was very prone to blue without at least a Wratten 1a or equivalent (skylight) and even a 2b was handy. Even Kodachrome was improved by a 1a in my experience, especially at 'altitude'. So I put UVas on my lenses and they are still there years later, lost one ot two scratched over the years but no scratches on front elements :-) Gerry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 20, 2017 Share #19 Posted January 20, 2017 It seems lens designers never hesitate to add another layer of glass when trying to improve design. How is adding a filter any different? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 20, 2017 Share #20 Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) Shooting a steel surface such as a car can be complicated by its surface treatment, for example wax. Time for me to fess-up. I have a toy sports car which has an early black paint job. I worried over it one Saturday with a buffer and wax until it looked pretty good! I photographed it using a polarizing filter. Total disaster! All the swirl marks broadcast "Amateur Detailing". It was an enlightening and humbling experience. Yeah, I think I still have some very low-end digital snaps of it, but they are so embarrassing. EDIT: Might photographing cars with a polarizing filter be valuable in assessing paint? Edited January 20, 2017 by pico Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.