• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Image quality loss due to UV Filters?


Yes I know super-wide angle lenses are around and have been for a long time. All I am suggesting is that they are relatively uncommon for the average 35mm film photographer
 
OP, shoot it both ways. Do a pixel peeping blog post on it . Then you can let us know.

I can say the modern lenses are super tough. I only had one lens scratched from using on a boat, possible from salt spray scratching it. But it was a vintage 1980s lens.

I've cleaned lenses 40 to 50 times with no ill effects. This place was a mess to shoot it. Was soaking in soda for 4 days.

 
When I began photographing many decades ago I used to keep a UV or skylight filter always on in order to protect the front element, basically because everybody else around me was doing the same thing.

Later, on one hand I had noticed that by no means I have ever put any of the front elements of mine under risk of being damaged. On the other hand, I grew up maniacal in the choice of my lenses, analyzing the optical design and choosing them also by considering the number of elements/groups and so on, to the point that today I would never put any protective filter in front of any lens except perhaps if I had to photograph in the middle of a sandstorm in the Sahara, or besides an erupting volcano (or if I was in the middle of yougsters shooting soda drinks, which, considered my lifestyle, is very unlikely going to happen).

As a side note, I could never really see a picture which had any benefit from being taken with an anti-UV filter, excepting those in advertisements or websites of filter makers.

In this paper, that you might like to read, lens renter Roger Cicala explains his position concerning anti-UV filters as protection elements. I more or less agree with his points, and I would like to remark that nowhere in the article he points out that the final image would have any improvement, actually an entire paragraph is aimed at showing that if a high quality (read: costy) filter is used, the image would not be too much damaged (read: it would be damaged).

I fully second his comments concerning the quality of filters; in my opinion anything of lesser quality than a B+W Schneider-Kreuznach filter has absolutely to be avoided: the difference in coating when kept side-by-side with a generic filter is outstanding. And even in this case, however, the use of a hood becomes mandatory under all circumstances. Moreover, these filters are not cheap, so once again their use as mere protection elements is questionable.
 
I bought a 70$ UV filter from Zeiss, using a lens cap is not in the plans because i shoot street and need to be ready. Also, i have no plans on shooting digital since i am super happy shooting analog right now. Thanks for all of the advice you guys, besides the concern about image quality i also needed lens protection so my UV filter should cover that part since i dont like how lens hood looks on my FE2
 
You may want to re-think the lens hood. It’s value isn’t in how good it looks on your camera.
 
Not just that, but... It seems to me that only half of the facts are provided to support his opinion. He shows that MTF is not affected in one lens with a high quality filter but never showed the effect on MTF of an inexpensive filter. Nor did he ever show images that had detrimental effects. Nor did he discuss the attributes of a good versus bad filter. It’s been a while since I bought a filter new but the last one was a 67mm Orange Hoya multicoated. I think I paid a price about what he call a cheap and inferior filter. I beg to differ. An interesting article though.
 
Last edited:
BrianShaw said:
You may want to re-think the lens hood. It’s value isn’t in how good it looks on your camera.
Click to expand...
But sometimes bright sources have to be included within the image, and the ghosting from this thus cannot be coped with a lens hood.
 
AgX said:
But sometimes bright sources have to be included within the image, and the ghosting from this thus cannot be coped with a lens hood.
Click to expand...
That’s true, but more often than not that situation can (or should be) avoided. The exception should become the rule in terms of generic best practices.
 
BrianShaw said:
You may want to re-think the lens hood. It’s value isn’t in how good it looks on your camera.
Click to expand...
Youre right, that expensive ass uv filter also needs protection. Will look for something nice (lens hood)
 
I like the Nikon metal hoods. Look better than the rubber ones.

In fact, that expensive-ass filter is much too valuable and should be displayed on a shelf and not be used on your camera in the field. Just kidding, of course.
 
BrianShaw said:
I like the Nikon metal hoods. Look better than the rubber ones.

In fact, that expensive-ass filter is much too valuable and should be displayed on a shelf and not be used on your camera in the field. Just kidding, of course.
Click to expand...

Going to put it in a museum..yeah the nikon ones look great, just seen a generic copy for 10 bucks..will cop
 
BrianShaw said:
Colloquialism.. when something/someone is really really stupid, American slang: “dumb-ass”.

When something is really really expensive...

. .
Click to expand...

I thought an ass was a donkey. As in "he made a complete ass of himself". Arse on the other hand is something different as in "after making a complete ass of himself he tripped over and fell on his arse".
 
Svenedin said:
I thought an ass was a donkey. As in "he made a complete ass of himself". Arse on the other hand is something different as in "after making a complete ass of himself he tripped over and fell on his arse".
Click to expand...
You could be right. BTW, thanks for quoting me because I think I inadvertently deleted it. In The term originally discussed, I’m not certain that it specifically refers to either a 4-legged mammal or a mammal’s posterior. I think it’s just an expression that evolved.
 
Last edited:
i use hoya, b+w, heliopan, zeiss and leitz uv filters. they all cause internal reflections in night/low light scenes if there are pin point light sources in the scene. so in those cases i just take them off. rest of the time i use them instead of lens caps.
 
Generally speaking most people seem to use a UV or 1A filter on a lens to protect the glass element at the front. So be it. But the use of a filter on a lens will do precious little else unless it is a coloured one to emphasise clouds etc when using B&W film. For general use there will be ABSOLUTELY no perceptible difference with a filter or not, unless you do a test on an optical bench. Some people always seem to be looking for a problem that does not exist in the 1st place.

Stop beating yourself up and get on with it, life is too short to worry about such trivialities.
 
I noticed that my left nostril has less hair on the inside versus my right nostril.

This, of course, means that the air traveling through my left nostril is more toxic.

What do you guys recomend? Do I continue to breath with both nostrils or do I totally condemn my left nostril?

I feel my health is at stake here.please help.
 
I've never used a UV filter in all my -40 years- photographic life and I've never experienced any lens damage. So all I can say is that I've saved a lot of money not buying any UV filter ever. I do always use lens hoods, both for keeping out unwanted stray lights and for protecting the lens.
 
BMbikerider said:
For general use there will be ABSOLUTELY no perceptible difference with a filter or not, unless you do a test on an optical bench.
Click to expand...

This guy here thinks different. Problem is we do not know what he actually did. It may be him or it may be the filter pane surfaces not being parallel to each other.:

(from another thread)
Ko.Fe. said:
No filter on left, soviet filter on the right.
https://periscope.com.ua/foto-accessories/o-kachestve-sovetskih
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register