Reading mode: Light Dark

UV Filters Useless or Worse?

Go to last post
historianx said:
MK said:
I did read the other thread where it turns out to be a filter on a 200-500 lens causing the misbehavior. I mainly use Hoya and B+W filters and not once did I see any weird effects on my photos.
Click to expand...
there are so many conditions that help create that "niseh" double-line bokeh, made even worse by a bad filter. I can reproduce that same effect with or without the 95mm B&W MRC Nano-coated filter attached to my 200-500.

Bad cheap bargain-basement filter only made something that was already there worse.
Click to expand...
 
historianx said:
MK said:
I did read the other thread where it turns out to be a filter on a 200-500 lens causing the misbehavior. I mainly use Hoya and B+W filters and not once did I see any weird effects on my photos.
Click to expand...
there are so many conditions that help create that "niseh" double-line bokeh, made even worse by a bad filter. I can reproduce that same effect with or without the 95mm B&W MRC Nano-coated filter attached to my 200-500.

Bad cheap bargain-basement filter only made something that was already there worse.
Click to expand...
 
Filters vary widely in quality of glass used, thickness of glass and mounts and some have no coating and some are coated and others are double coated, etc. and so I would not be surprised if someone had a problem with a cheap UV filter but would be surprised if they had an issue with a B+W or similar quality filter.

I use a UV when there is windblown dirt or sand as this protects the front element of the lens. It also protects the insides of the lens when their is windblown moisture which might get past the seal of the front element.
 
calson said:
Filters vary widely in quality of glass used, thickness of glass and mounts and some have no coating and some are coated and others are double coated, etc. and so I would not be surprised if someone had a problem with a cheap UV filter but would be surprised if they had an issue with a B+W or similar quality filter.

I use a UV when there is windblown dirt or sand as this protects the front element of the lens. It also protects the insides of the lens when their is windblown moisture which might get past the seal of the front element.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
They're not needed for digital sensors and modern lens coatings are pretty tough and cleanable. So I don't use a UV filer as a matter of course.

However, if I'm shooting in a place where I can anticipate water spray, kid's inquisitive fingers, or dog noseprints, I'll use a UV filter for protection.
 
Ray UK said:
I very much doubt that you have damaged the coating, it is much tougher than people believe, often it is harder than the glass underneath it.

AiryDiscus said:

"No, coatings are never tougher than optical glass".
Click to expand...
The above snippet from Brandon Dube's (AiryDiscus) comment about coatings is from forum posting, "What is Happening to my Lens?" and runs counter to what I and many other photographers may have believed. Brandon Dube is a former LensRentals' intern and now a frequent consultant for LR's technical blogs.

I use B+W UV or Nikon NC filters when shooting in windy dust, salt spray or similar conditions.
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
SoupOrPhoto said:
On a recent thread, the OP discovered a UV/protective filter on the 200-500 causing mischief in images.

I have had this experience a number of times and have come to think that the filters are, at best, useless.
Click to expand...
I have only had one incident where a "cheap" filter very seriously degraded image quality.

An inferior filter can degrade image quality with any lens.

From the retailers perspective the profit margin an a filter can be 400% ;-)
Click to expand...
 
scokill said:
SoupOrPhoto said:
On a recent thread, the OP discovered a UV/protective filter on the 200-500 causing mischief in images.

I have had this experience a number of times and have come to think that the filters are, at best, useless. Sensors do not need the filter, most of my lenses are coated, reflect little, and are easy to clean. I’ve never caused any damage to a lens and I often leave the lens cap off all day. Why pay so much money for a fine optical system and put a useless surface in front of it?

Do others find these filters useful? (The industry must love selling them...)
Click to expand...
UV Filters Useless or Worse? Both
Click to expand...
I have a $2,200 Nikon 105 F1.4. You bet your life I put the best Hoya filter I could find on it.
 
if it makes you feel better to use a protective filter, go for it. A good filter has minimal impact to IQ.

--
Bill - Beverly Hills, MI
Motorsports Photography
http://billgulkerphotography.com/
 
Last edited:
Miike Dougherty said:
I have a $2,200 Nikon 105 F1.4. You bet your life I put the best Hoya filter I could find on it.
Click to expand...
I have 18 lenses, including the 105 f1.4 - and do not use "protection filters" on any of them.

I do use pols (but not on wide angles unsuited to pols) and grads - when they help improve the image.
 
UV not needed for digital thus I use a Nikon NC (clear) filter on my Nikkor lenses ... Nikon makes a very high quality protective clear "filter" using high quality glass.
 
Lens rental has an excellent filter review.. to save you time Hoya hmc uv are one of the best and cheapest. I use them in adverse conditions and on an expensive lens when not using a lens hood.
 
NikonHaoleboy said:
Ray UK said:
I very much doubt that you have damaged the coating, it is much tougher than people believe, often it is harder than the glass underneath it.

AiryDiscus said:

"No, coatings are never tougher than optical glass".
Click to expand...
The above snippet from Brandon Dube's (AiryDiscus) comment about coatings is from forum posting, "What is Happening to my Lens?" and runs counter to what I and many other photographers may have believed. Brandon Dube is a former LensRentals' intern and now a frequent consultant for LR's technical blogs.

I use B+W UV or Nikon NC filters when shooting in windy dust, salt spray or similar conditions.
Click to expand...
Ah, excuse me.

I have never been an employee (or intern) of LensRentals.

I'm not a consultant for LR.

I'm a co-founder of Olaf Optical Testing, and hold the title Director of Metrology there.

I am also an Optical Engineer at Aperture Optical Sciences

I have only ever been an intern at Optikos, and Caltech/NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
 
My apologies Brandon, I apparently misunderstood this from "Measuring Lens Variance", June 26, 2015.

"Our summer intern, Brandon Dube, has tackled that problem and come up with a reasonably elegant solution. He’s written some Matlab scripts that grab the results generated from our Trioptics ImagemasterOptical Bench, summarizes them, and performs sample variation comparisons automatically".

Variance Measurements for Consumer Lenses

Starting May 2015

This is a project to document the manufacturing variance among commercial camera lenses. A list of previously published results may be viewed here: http://www.retrorefractions.com/lens-variance

Team members:
 
Sure, that's from the very early days of Olaf before any dust had settled (incl. titles). You may note that all of the images bear Olaf badging, and not LR ones. This is from before we started writing (C) Olaf [...] under the images.
 
What’s interesting of all the hammering on the use of a single high quality glass filter is that no one seems to object professional’s use of Lee/Cokin filter systems. There they use polymer filters without any coating and often multiple in stack, producing top notch images, often in large prints for exhibits.
 
Why Toi said:
What’s interesting of all the hammering on the use of a single high quality glass filter is that no one seems to object professional’s use of Lee/Cokin filter systems. There they use polymer filters without any coating and often multiple in stack, producing top notch images, often in large prints for exhibits.
Click to expand...
Because they are used for a reason and only when needed.

The useless UV filter (for digital) most likely is left on permanently - akin to shooting through a window every time
 
BillyBobSenna said:
if it makes you feel better to use a protective filter, go for it. A good filter has minimal impact to IQ.
Click to expand...
I've seen examples on this forum of image degradation from filters on big lenses. There could be an issue related to distortion over a large aperture. Unfortunately, those are the kind of lenses that people are most motivated to protect.

I generally don't use protective filters. Just when there's sea water splashing around because it's not nice getting salt off your front element.
 
Leonard Migliore said:
BillyBobSenna said:
if it makes you feel better to use a protective filter, go for it. A good filter has minimal impact to IQ.
Click to expand...
I've seen examples on this forum of image degradation from filters on big lenses. There could be an issue related to distortion over a large aperture. Unfortunately, those are the kind of lenses that people are most motivated to protect.

I generally don't use protective filters. Just when there's sea water splashing around because it's not nice getting salt off your front element.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top