Very good. I guessed first one is without, because it was darker, had better contrast. Maybe exposing was not just same, I didn't see differense in sharpness. I have also always used UV or skylight filters on my lenses, never had any expensive, some have been second hand as well. I have had lot of cameras and long time. If that was thrue in example here, ofcourse that filter is useless, it can be thrue, never seen anything like that before. jouni
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Take off that awful thing of your lens
- Thread starter forpetessake
- Start date
tko
Forum Pro
Come on, how can we believe a post where you don't even mention the manufacturer or brand of filter?
Obviously you have an axe to grind, and want to convert people to your own religious.
I've never seen a difference with hundred of A/B comparisons. But I only use good filters. Except once where a purchased a no name in the streets of China . . .
You have dozens of complex optical surfaces in your camera. To think one more would make a noticeable different is ludicrous. Old subject, and one discussed a thousand times before.
Using a tripod on every single shot will make a far bigger difference.
Obviously you have an axe to grind, and want to convert people to your own religious.
I've never seen a difference with hundred of A/B comparisons. But I only use good filters. Except once where a purchased a no name in the streets of China . . .
You have dozens of complex optical surfaces in your camera. To think one more would make a noticeable different is ludicrous. Old subject, and one discussed a thousand times before.
Using a tripod on every single shot will make a far bigger difference.
forpetessake
Veteran Member
Carefully executed test results are always useful in objective evaluation. I never thought there would such a big difference between polarizers. I learned something today 
For the other people, especially those who to my surprise took the issue so passionately, I just want to say that this thread is not about prescribing the use of the filters. I wanted to provide test samples, you decide. And I would recommend testing your lenses and filters, it's important to know your own equipment. Making decisions based on measurements is much better than out of ignorance.
For the other people, especially those who to my surprise took the issue so passionately, I just want to say that this thread is not about prescribing the use of the filters. I wanted to provide test samples, you decide. And I would recommend testing your lenses and filters, it's important to know your own equipment. Making decisions based on measurements is much better than out of ignorance.
I couldn't agree more. I never use a filter routinely, I use one only if I need its optical contribution (polarisers mainly) or when the environment is hostile (blowing dust in particular) and I feel a need to protect the lens from it.
I use UV filters so rarely that I can pass no comment about their effect but I can easily believe your OP. I do however have some very dodgy polarisers that illustrate your point quite well...
One thing I learned many years ago is that if I must use a cheap polariser then make it a cheap linear polariser. Cheap circular polarisers are often very destructive to the image:
I tested with the little Zuiko wide open and without sharpening, so of course it looks a little soft but still resolves to the limit of the 5N sensor, as can be seen in the top image. The bottom image with the cheap linear polariser is essentially unaffected (maybe a touch of contrast loss), but the middle image with the cheap CPOL... Well, 'nuff said.
--
John Bean [BST (GMT+1)]
forpetessake
Veteran Member
... How else would I know what is happening? It's like faulting scientists for the use of a microscope.
But your point is taken. The requirements to image quality depend on application. If one needs only very small images on the screen he might not notice even if a fly was sitting on his lens all that time.
Since the question of image quality and how much of it is necessary results in religious wars, I'm not discussing it. I provide test results, you decide. Don't shoot the messenger.
But your point is taken. The requirements to image quality depend on application. If one needs only very small images on the screen he might not notice even if a fly was sitting on his lens all that time.
Since the question of image quality and how much of it is necessary results in religious wars, I'm not discussing it. I provide test results, you decide. Don't shoot the messenger.
Knallberto
Veteran Member
... is to USE NO FILTER, especially UV filters are full worthless.
Sense make pol filters - look picture (from today), made with $ 4.99 filter.
(Laughing) 101% you get NOT a better picture with a $ 180 B+W filter.
If you need new ego & self-esteem - buy it. If you are a good fotographer: let this expensive joke.
pictures out of camera
Sense make pol filters - look picture (from today), made with $ 4.99 filter.
(Laughing) 101% you get NOT a better picture with a $ 180 B+W filter.
If you need new ego & self-esteem - buy it. If you are a good fotographer: let this expensive joke.
pictures out of camera
I may lose some sharpness with my Hoya UV's, but I find solace in wiping down the UV filter with a microfiber cloth rather than mucking up a lens' one and only front element.
The real threat of using a cheap filter is introducing flare and unsightly reflections. And by cheap I mean cheap materials, not cheap price - because I paid $11.99 for my 46mm thread Hoya HMC UV (c) filter and it's great. I can shoot directly at light sources and get no flare. As long as a filter is multi-coated, it should serve you well.
Now more power to you if you can shoot without a filter, but it's effectiveness really depends on how you use your camera. Personally, I tend to carry my NEX-3 & Sig 30 around with no bag, and no cap so it's ready to go... & I bring my camera everywhere. I don't shoot in a vacuum or any sterile environments, so for my usage a UV filter is crucial.
The real threat of using a cheap filter is introducing flare and unsightly reflections. And by cheap I mean cheap materials, not cheap price - because I paid $11.99 for my 46mm thread Hoya HMC UV (c) filter and it's great. I can shoot directly at light sources and get no flare. As long as a filter is multi-coated, it should serve you well.
Now more power to you if you can shoot without a filter, but it's effectiveness really depends on how you use your camera. Personally, I tend to carry my NEX-3 & Sig 30 around with no bag, and no cap so it's ready to go... & I bring my camera everywhere. I don't shoot in a vacuum or any sterile environments, so for my usage a UV filter is crucial.
forpetessake
Veteran Member
I did a few more tests with telephoto lenses. I believe those are affected the most, as far as I can see the larger the effective aperture the more degradation the filter introduces.
These test pictures were taken with Canon 100-300mm/5.6L lens at 300mm fully open. The filter is multicoated Hoya HMC UV(0). This lens is not as sharp nor as large as the previous Nikon lens, so it's only natural the filter has less affect on it. Nevertherless, the sharpness and contrast are degraded with filter. It's easy to see overlaying one picture over the other.
The next pictures were taken with Canon 100mm/2.8 lens fully open. The size of the opening pupil is smaller, around 36mm. The filter is Rokunar. I tried also simple Minolta filter, and it didn't make any difference.
So my theory is that the biggest effect filters have on large aperture telephoto lenses. It doesn't seem to depend on whether it's a simple glass or multicoated filter, but rather on the filter surface area used in forming image.
These test pictures were taken with Canon 100-300mm/5.6L lens at 300mm fully open. The filter is multicoated Hoya HMC UV(0). This lens is not as sharp nor as large as the previous Nikon lens, so it's only natural the filter has less affect on it. Nevertherless, the sharpness and contrast are degraded with filter. It's easy to see overlaying one picture over the other.
The next pictures were taken with Canon 100mm/2.8 lens fully open. The size of the opening pupil is smaller, around 36mm. The filter is Rokunar. I tried also simple Minolta filter, and it didn't make any difference.
So my theory is that the biggest effect filters have on large aperture telephoto lenses. It doesn't seem to depend on whether it's a simple glass or multicoated filter, but rather on the filter surface area used in forming image.
GodSpeaks
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 15,147
- Solutions
- 13
- Reaction score
- 7,195
Not true. See my post above.
--
The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler
Sigh
M&M:
Sony NEX-5N + Yashica DSB 135mm f/2.8 @f/5.6, 1/8 sec, ISO100, tripod mounted, remote-triggered.
Subject distance about 6' 2.5", perpendicular to camera axis.
Tested conditions:
All three photos: 100% crops. Imported into LR4.1 as ARW (no in-camera shenanigans), no post-processing from default (esp. no sharpening!). Develop settings (i.e. crop) copied from the first file to the other two files (also, full homogenization of settings). All three files exported to PS CS3 for collaging. Exported for web in JPEG at 100% quality.
Obviously single-blind.
M&M:
Sony NEX-5N + Yashica DSB 135mm f/2.8 @f/5.6, 1/8 sec, ISO100, tripod mounted, remote-triggered.
Subject distance about 6' 2.5", perpendicular to camera axis.
Tested conditions:
- No filter
- Hoya S-HMC Pro 1 UV(0) filter, 55mm
- Tiffen Sky 1A filter, 55mm
All three photos: 100% crops. Imported into LR4.1 as ARW (no in-camera shenanigans), no post-processing from default (esp. no sharpening!). Develop settings (i.e. crop) copied from the first file to the other two files (also, full homogenization of settings). All three files exported to PS CS3 for collaging. Exported for web in JPEG at 100% quality.
Obviously single-blind.
After seeing forum threads and websites about how people have damaged their front element and photos come out looking fine, I'm not so worried about "mucking up" a lens. I try to carry a soft lens-cleaning cloth just in case I need to wipe off a finger print, but it's usually not a big deal if I can keep from touching it.
I seem to have pretty good results with my B+W lin. pol. as well. Inexpensive, but must have some sort of coating.
Years ago I saw tests online where someone had shown the flare possible with UV lenses. I started to realize I really didn't need that "protective" filter.
--
Gary W.
forpetessake
Veteran Member
Had you read the post before answering it would have saved you all that time testing.
I already indicated that the tests show the larger the aperture the more effect a filter has on image quality. If you compared 180mm, 300mm, and 100mm tests I've posted you would have noticed that. So testing 135mm at 5.6 obviously wouldn't show much, even at F/2.8 it should be close to the posted 100mm/2.8, provided the lens is sharp enough.
Secondly, you need to test spatial frequencies close to maximum resolution to clearly see the effect, judging from your images you need to move back roughly by 17% to get to the same point I used in my tests. So move back, and get some large aperture sharp lenses, then you will see the difference, that is, of course if you think I screwed up the test pictures I posted, which I don't think I did.
One more thing, it's not easy to ascertain from the pictures the loss of contrast. It can be clearly seen on pictures of 300mm lens with Hoya HMC filter if one overlays them and rapidly switches from one to another. I leave this exercise to all who are interested.
Lastly, nothing seems to indicate so far that more expensive multicoated filters are any better than cheaper uncoated ones. They should be able to reduce reflections as the manufacturers claim, but their effect on loss of resolution seem to be the same.
I already indicated that the tests show the larger the aperture the more effect a filter has on image quality. If you compared 180mm, 300mm, and 100mm tests I've posted you would have noticed that. So testing 135mm at 5.6 obviously wouldn't show much, even at F/2.8 it should be close to the posted 100mm/2.8, provided the lens is sharp enough.
Secondly, you need to test spatial frequencies close to maximum resolution to clearly see the effect, judging from your images you need to move back roughly by 17% to get to the same point I used in my tests. So move back, and get some large aperture sharp lenses, then you will see the difference, that is, of course if you think I screwed up the test pictures I posted, which I don't think I did.
One more thing, it's not easy to ascertain from the pictures the loss of contrast. It can be clearly seen on pictures of 300mm lens with Hoya HMC filter if one overlays them and rapidly switches from one to another. I leave this exercise to all who are interested.
Lastly, nothing seems to indicate so far that more expensive multicoated filters are any better than cheaper uncoated ones. They should be able to reduce reflections as the manufacturers claim, but their effect on loss of resolution seem to be the same.
Sigh
M&M:
Sony NEX-5N + Yashica DSB 135mm f/2.8 @f/5.6, 1/8 sec, ISO100, tripod mounted, remote-triggered.
Subject distance about 6' 2.5", perpendicular to camera axis.
Tested conditions:
All shots individually focused to peak focus, which was the most time-consuming part of this stupid affair.
- No filter
- Hoya S-HMC Pro 1 UV(0) filter, 55mm
- Tiffen Sky 1A filter, 55mm
All three photos: 100% crops. Imported into LR4.1 as ARW (no in-camera shenanigans), no post-processing from default (esp. no sharpening!). Develop settings (i.e. crop) copied from the first file to the other two files (also, full homogenization of settings). All three files exported to PS CS3 for collaging. Exported for web in JPEG at 100% quality.
Obviously single-blind.
jvideographer
Active member
If your solution is so good, why do you feel the need to degrade everyone else.
Ad du it wth bd splng?
--
John
Ad du it wth bd splng?
--
John
Actually, the point I am making is different, and quite simple: whatever detrimental effects that you are proclaiming as the reason why filters are nothing but bad is pretty much negligible-to-non-existent under normal shooting conditions.
Fact is, if you're shooting wide-open, you are not striving for maximum resolution. You have already decided to sacrifice resolution for other factors that are either necessary or desired. If for some reason you are a wide-open specialist and feel that you don't want to further degrade your already-compromised image... then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that filters are not for you. But then you are doing a disservice to everyone else who shoots more generally by trying to convince them that filters are just bad. No, they are only bad for you.
I mean, I could post a bunch of photos at f/22 against smooth backdrops and argue that interchangeable lenses are terrible for photographic quality (via dust contamination of the sensor). Perhaps if that was the way I shot, then yes, they would be bad for me. But they'd hardly be relevant to anyone else. Which is the point I am making.
If you spent any time shooting with any assortment of more-expensive multi-coated filters, you'd understand that this is mostly only relevant when there are highlights in the field-of-view. That is where the multicoating advantage is plainly and undeniably obvious. Actually, you don't even need to shoot and pixel-peep. You just need to look at the screen/viewfinder; the difference is that obvious.
Want to hazard some wild guesses as to which of my shots were with what?
No arguments here, but when you consider things like resale value, a lens with cleaning marks vs. one without is a no brainer - you'll sell closer to your price if it's clean. On some occasions you can sell a New/Like New lens for profit.
Surely, most lenses are built to last. But when I'm digging up 30 year old Rokkors, Nikkors and Takumars, clearly, I'm willing to shell out money for a clean copy. Not so much if it has cleaning marks, dust or scratches.
John Bean (UK)
Forum Pro
That's not really true in the case of many fast telephoto lenses, which is what was being illustrated. Many such lenses are designed to produce optimum results close to their maximum aperture - even at their maximum aperture in the case of some APO designs. These are the very lenses that may be compromised by inserting a filter of any sort in front of them and some of the best use rear filters instead, avoiding the optical problems associated with the use of large front-mounted filters.
Just as the OP shouldn't have implied that his findings can be generalised to any lens in any situation neither should your reply attempt to generalise that it doesn't matter ever - because it can and does matter when using long lenses designed to be used at wide apertures.
--
John Bean [BST (GMT+1)]
Bernie Ess
Veteran Member
You sound like Ken Rockwell on an extra portion of testosteron.
Or, as I would put it german (for Knallberto):
Beneidenswert schlichte Weltsicht
Bernhard
--
'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' (Elliot Erwitt)
forpetessake
Veteran Member
I provided tests for the subject I was interested in, I hope other people may find them useful. If you don't find them useful, and I'm absolutely fine with that, so let's put it to rest, no need to make it ugly.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum