uv or not uv?? (1 Viewer)

westley byford

Well-known member

• Apr 8, 2010

• #1

on each of my lens's i have uv filters, all different makes, do they make a difference to pic quality?

one side of me says no as its a flat piece of glass, and another says canon wouldnt have spent millions designing lens's just for a £20 bit of crap to be screwed on the front.... much like these boy racers and there exhaust's!!

but as im new to this i dont know the pro's/cons....
could someone enlighten me please..

cheers
wes

 

westley byford

Well-known member

• Apr 8, 2010

• #2

oh and at the moment i only have the following lens... 'nothing great'

canon 18-55mm is kit lens
canon 28-135mm is usm lens
sigma 135-400mm apo lens

 

JohnZ

Well-known member

• Apr 8, 2010

• #3

I suspect they do affect the image Westley. But I will wait until somebody disagrees with me. And that it sure to happen !

 

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper

• Apr 9, 2010

• #4

I am firmly in the non filter camp for telephotos although I do use one on my landscape lens. I have a Hoya pro digital UV filter which when fitted on my 400/5.6 definitely had an adverse effect on IQ but when I used the very same filter on my 17-40 it did not seem to have much effect.
BTW on the Canon super telephoto primes there is no facility to fit a front filter even if you wanted to (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800.5.6 ...........)

It would be relatively easy to do a test with your 135-400 lens. Mount on a tripod and take a series of shots at the same target with and without the filter and then see if you can see a difference.

Disclaimer – I am just an amateur/hobbyist snapper and do not claim to be an expert so take what I say with a pinch of salt.. Be warned, my thoughts will probably be challenged by the more knowledgeable

 

JohnZ

Well-known member

• Apr 9, 2010

• #5

Do you have a tripod ?

 

hollis_f

Well-known member

• Apr 9, 2010

• #6

westley byford said:

on each of my lens's i have uv filters, all different makes, do they make a difference to pic quality?

Click to expand...

Yes.

• No UV filter can possibly improve image quality.
• All UV filters will degrade IQ to some extent.
• Degradation in IQ tends to decrease with filter cost.
• IQ degradation with expensive filters may be minimal enough to not be noticeable under some conditions.

Here's a good demo of how a good, expensive, filter compares to a cheap and nasty filter.

 

tdodd

Just call me Tim

• Apr 9, 2010

• #7

I'm very much in the "no filters unless essential for lens safety" camp. For 99,9999% of my shooting I have no need for a UV filter. I prefer to use a lens hood for physical protection and to reduce flare. UV filters have a place if they complete weather sealing or prevent your front element being etched away in a sandstorm, for example, but since I don't shoot in rain or sandstorms the need for a UV filter is approximately nil. I do have several high quality UV filters (Hoya Pro 1 and similar), just in case, but I don't use them, so it's not an issue of cost, rather one of preference to maximise IQ.

If you want to see how various UV filters differ in performance, this comprehensive test may be helpful....

http://lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

 

westley byford

Well-known member

• Apr 9, 2010

• #8

thankyou guys..
my uv lens have just now been made redundant..

but will keep them for back up just incase sunny southend gets hit with a sandstorm..

regards wes

 

Nikon Kid

Love them Sula Bassana

• Apr 10, 2010

• #9

No filter for me on a bird or macro lens, never used one on my 10-20 sigma f3.5 for landscapes for special affects, but maybe would try one out if the scene/image needed one for bluer sky or greener grass etc, but you can still manipulate the image in post processing also. I have taken a number of birds in the garden through double glazed windows and cannot really see much difference.