-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Do filters degrade image quality?
- Thread starter websurfer
- Start date
dchao
Veteran Member
Yes it does. But would you be able to see any difference at 100% on screen or even in prints? You can be your own judge there.
However, filters will cause more flares and ghosting with digital sensors, you should remove any filter when doing night shots or shooting into strong lights.
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Veteran Member
Then why start a new expensive habit? Have you had any trouble with your lenses? Filters are meant to filter the light, if there is no need to filter anything then don't use a filter.
Yes they do. They produce flare, haze, reflections, may degrade AF performance (I've had such an instance with one of the best filters money could buy, that's when I decided to abandon this fallacy).
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/461808
Forrest41926
Veteran Member
But even so, I use a filter on every lens I own, save for the 15-30 EX. It just won't function ( on FF ) with one.
A lousy filter is much worse than a good one. With a nice ( read: $$$ ) Heliopan I don't think you could see the difference, but with a low end, 3-for-a-dollar grab bag filter, you'll think you must have dropped your lens.
Some people will say the price of two good filters is less than the price of repairing your lens. ( Since whatever would have killed the lens would kill the first filter. ) That's probably true ... but you also have to think about the time it would take to have it repaired.
Maybe you are right - but the difference is difficult to notice, I think - I have just found this link on the net:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/53387928
Try to guess which one is with UV filter and which one is without filter - BEFORE you read the text belove.
I couldn´t tell the difference.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/53387928
Try to guess which one is with UV filter and which one is without filter - BEFORE you read the text belove.
I couldn´t tell the difference.
dchao
Veteran Member
If you can't tell the difference, it's down to personal preference to have the filter on or off.
lightrules
Leading Member
..i've shot thousands of frames with my lenses with 77mm filter threads (viz, 7-2IS, 1-4IS, 1020EX) using my B+W, Hoya HMC, and eBay S&W MC, there is more difference with not using ANY filter than there are differences between these brands. undoubtedly the B+W have the best build and cleaning (ease), but optically in 98% of shooting conditions, you're simply NOT going to see differences. BUT in high flare or similar conditions, i take off the filters, regardless of brand.
the bottom line is that the optical IQ is the common sense way: bare lens + hood (the hood is a HUGE factor in capturing the most contrast especially in high-flare conditions). but for day-to-day shooting, i keep my UVs on. i just dont see any meaningful difference is the massive majority of my shots.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
the bottom line is that the optical IQ is the common sense way: bare lens + hood (the hood is a HUGE factor in capturing the most contrast especially in high-flare conditions). but for day-to-day shooting, i keep my UVs on. i just dont see any meaningful difference is the massive majority of my shots.
--
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
foldedpath
Leading Member
That's an invalid test. Look at the direction of the light. Where filters reduce contrast the most, is with strong backlighting, especially with digital sensors (direct reflection back and forth between the chip surface and the flat filter). That's why the more recent Big Gun glass from both Canon and Nikon use curved "protective" front filters.
I've never used a "protective" filter in 30+ years of photography, except uinder a few extreme condiitons (saltwater spray, etc.). The two or three times I've damaged a lens in the line of duty, the filter would not have helped at all. Protective filters are a big profit-maker for camera stores, and that's about it. They also complicate the use of additional filter for creative purposes, like a polarizer or ND filters.
That's personal experience and opinion only... your mileage may vary.
Daniella68313
Veteran Member
I use Hoya pro-1 on most of my expensive lenses and not so expensive lenses and I did the test with and without the filter..actualy I think the resolution and detaili is the same but the UV help cutting down the haze in hazy atmosphere so it can actualy help to get better contrast and clearer pics.
other than that, I don't see any image degradation with the pro-1.
I did have and tried a cheap UV and the image quality was horrible.
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
other than that, I don't see any image degradation with the pro-1.
I did have and tried a cheap UV and the image quality was horrible.
--
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
Forrest41926
Veteran Member
I've never lived far from the coastline for more than a month or two at a time ... you can smell the salt in the air from my neighborhood. That doesn't apply to everybody, though, and advice from someone else only goes so far.
Well ... one of those will protect the lens, too!
discusjoe
Veteran Member
Have you noticed any amount of light loss to the sensor when using these filters?
jojo
jojo
Photography is a never ending tug of war in compromises.
jojo
jojo
--other than that, I don't see any image degradation with the pro-1.
I did have and tried a cheap UV and the image quality was horrible.
--
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
Photography is a never ending tug of war in compromises.
lightrules
Leading Member
you define "invalid." i've elaborated plenty on this issue with regards to normal v. high flare shooting. enough said.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
--That's an invalid test. Look at the direction of the light. Where
filters reduce contrast the most, is with strong backlighting,
especially with digital sensors (direct reflection back and forth
between the chip surface and the flat filter). That's why the more
recent Big Gun glass from both Canon and Nikon use curved
"protective" front filters.
I've never used a "protective" filter in 30+ years of photography,
except uinder a few extreme condiitons (saltwater spray, etc.). The
two or three times I've damaged a lens in the line of duty, the
filter would not have helped at all. Protective filters are a big
profit-maker for camera stores, and that's about it. They also
complicate the use of additional filter for creative purposes, like
a polarizer or ND filters.
That's personal experience and opinion only... your mileage may
vary.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
Elan Remford
Veteran Member
By their very nature, filters are intended to alter image quality. Whether that ultimately translates into "degrading" it is subjective. Virtually every filter is bound to have some effect upon sharpness and/or contrast, but one could hardly claim the results to have been degradation if their use achieves what is intended to be a more significant priority.
foldedpath
Leading Member
It's invalid, to the extent that the most noticeable degradation happens with backlight near the lens axis. A subject with sunlight coming from the side, as in that link, isn't the best test case.
I would think that would be self-evident?
lightrules
Leading Member
no, self-evident is something like 2+2=4 or the law of non-contradiction. as for your beef about the link not being the "best test case", no one claimed it was. some folks believe IQ is degraded PER SE with filter use, so it at LEAST shows at 100% crop-level that isn't so. no one is disputing IQ degradation with UV filters in high-contrast, backlit scenes. QED.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
--
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
foldedpath
Leading Member
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So the question becomes; do you want to keep a "protective" filter on the lens, and then have to judge when the lighting might result in IQ degradation and then remove it? Or do you want to just chuck it and not worry about IQ degradation at all?
I'm the lazy kind of guy who doesn't want to have to think about whether the filter should be on there, or not... and I really don't buy the whole "physical protection" thing anyway. As I said, I've trashed a few lenses over the years (plane crash, fungus, dropping on concrete), and filters would not have helped. I just want the highest possible image quality, under all conditions. When I use filters at all (pola, ND), I view it as a necessary evil.
lightrules
Leading Member
No, I was "there" well before this discussion of ours; see my "yes and no" post; that should have settled it.
Actually, I dont care to address this boring, beat a dead horse issue that comes up every 5 threads with a vote and decides nothing.
--
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests
Guerito
Veteran Member
I primarlly use B+W Pro MRC UV & Hoya Pro1 UV. I
seem to remember measuring -0.1 to -0.2 stops using my Sekonic L-558.
--
'The primary purpose of any business is to make a profit.'
Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home ;jsessionid=GX90G0k1Qp!1508707039?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=186095&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
I am deciding at the moment between these two. B+W is very difficult to get in OZ, but I'll go to Europe at the end of this month... HOYA’s are available… but appears to be very difficult to clean…
Could you tell the difference between them? Which one do you prefer / why?
Regards,
Boky
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum