UV filters, unscientific test

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
Bing Chow Senior Member • Posts: 2,536
Re: Test @ 200mm

imhosting wrote:

Bing Chow wrote:

I won't bother to show the results between unfiltered vs UV because there isn't any.

Sure we just take your word for it.

You do realize that what I showed has the UV + CPL, right? So whatever effect the UV has on sharpness, should be even worse with the 2 extra layers of glass.

I don't see a difference. This is consistent with another test that I've done, with other brands.

Does this test really mimic real word conditions? It's indoors on a tripod, I would hardly think that is a common situation to be using filters.

This is not a test for flare. My goals was to see if it robs sharpness. And to do a good test IMO, you have to remove any possibility of user error. Otherwise, how do you know it was the filter that made the image slightly fuzzy? Could have been my shaky hands. Could have been a slight breeze if I chose an outdoor scene.

So people who report degradation are either using REALLY bad filters, using less rigorous technique (flimsy tripod, handholding, difficult subjects, changing outdoor conditions), or they're just parroting what they read and they haven't really tested themselves.

It's physics, whether you can tell a difference or not, there is degradation.

If you can't see it, does it matter? Otherwise, that's just paranoia.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow