File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
are UV filters important?

my friend was telling me i need to get one for my lenses and i was stuck on not getting them because if i remember correctly i read a thread about them and people were saying all they do is limit light and distort your image and that it was better to just get a lens hood is this correct?
>> A/M
IMHO UV filters are only useful for landscapes and stuff.
>> Anonymous
get it for protecting your glass, if for nothing else
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>157804
yea, thats what ive heard.

i dont use any, though i pron should for my landscapes, but most people argue they should be used to protect the lens, seems rediculous when you get a lenscap which doesnt degrade the quality.

comes down to personal opinion, and also how sloppy you are when handling your equipment...
>> Anonymous
sense i have lens hoods would investing in a good one be worth it or should i maybe get some cheap/ish ones to protect my lenses which does sound kind of weird to me because i do have lenscaps
>> Anonymous
may be a stupid question, but what does a UV lens really do to the image? Is it in any way major?

Also, what are the best other filters to have, and wai? I know its a broad question, bulletpoint your answers!
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
I have a UV filter because i photo people a lot and people like to touch things. I'd much rather have them scratch and shit on my cheapo 77mm uv than on my expensive 11-18.

Human and element protection is the best use of a UV, i didnt notice any effects when i was landscaping, but some UV filters also have skylight filters in them.
>> Anonymous
THEY JUST.
PROTECT.
YOUR LENS.

There's some negligible benefit when shooting film, but for digital it's just a cheap way to protect your lens glass.

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/filter-UV.html
>> A/M
Stop wasting your time and go fucking discuss stuff that actually is somewhat useful.
Im out, this is going nowhere.
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
>>157844
NEW TOPIC
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Copypasta'ing myself

UV Filters

Argument for:
1. Adds some protection to the lens' front element from scratches, accidental bumps, some subset of drops, etc
2. Cuts out some UV haze
3. Good ones won't noticeably distort your image

Argument against:
1. Adds another piece of glass that could cause flare, vignetting, and general image degradation, especially with a cheap one
2. If you get a not-cheap one to combat the above problems... it's not cheap
3. Doesn't protect against all lens damage (and therefore provides a false sense of security). More lens damage would be prevented by keeping a hood on the lens (which would also noticeably increase image quality).

Both sides have valid arguments. I personally don't use a UV filter because I like to live on the edge and I'm too lazy to deal with 'em.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>157816

That's another point. If you've got a real risk of crap going on it you had better get very cheap filters that you can throw away because they are hell to clean without ruining them or get a B+W that is very durable and hope it doesn't get scratched or cracked.

If you're in amongst flowers and plants in summer you can get sap, pollen and nectar on the front and that's never good. On beaches you have to be careful of dust, sand and salt.

Always get a multicoated filter though. Even the cheap ones can be okay if they are multicoated.
>> Anonymous
>>157883

I've heard that if you use a hood with the UV filter multicoat isn't actually that important. Anybody know for sure?

PS: Wat if I wont lenz flar itz so artiztik!!!
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>157889
p/shop it in then
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
>>157889

No, just get a multicoated one. You can get a cheap one on eBay for half the price of retail or something. I've seen them for $10 for multicoated. They'll probably be dodgy to clean, but at least they will work in the meantime.

Even with a hood a filter is only going to add to the problems and without decent coatings it will be worse. Just go for the multicoated as it's only starting at $10 for the cheapest of them and you can see what you can afford from there. No reason to penny pinch more than that.

PIC RELATED

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2005:12:10 15:33:04Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width952Image Height788
>> Anonymous
i choose that the left one has the filter
>> Anonymous
>>157897

R: Filter
L: No filter
>> Anonymous
>>157897

WHICH IS IT?!?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157923
I'm reasonably certain that it's the middle one.
>> Anonymous
I think it's the one on the right side that has the filter on.

Overall, though, I think such minute differences are irrelevant.

You pretty much lose a lot more sharpness from camera shake, bad focusing, wrong aperture, high iso, etc than you lose from this tiny sheet of glass. I

think they're worth the protection they provide your front element. It also makes cleaning the front easier.
>> Anonymous
Any brands to look for/avoid?
>> Anonymous
Don't waste your time with a UV/skylight filter. Run a proper rigid lens hood and you will benefit a great deal more than you will from a clear filter. A clear filter will (unless you shell out $75 for a good one) degrade your sharpness, increase flare, increase chromatic aberrations, and still won't do shit against something (corner of a table, etc) coming straight in at the front element of your lens. You're better off running a proper rigid lens hood.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
>>157938

PIC RELATED AGAIN

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2005:06:15 20:58:56Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1416Image Height2202
>> Anonymous
So what you're saying is that even with a shitty $10 filter there's almost no noticeable difference, even at 100%?

Awesome! I
>> Anonymous
yes... lets throw a $20 filter in front of a $1000 lens and expect no degradation in image quality.
>> parshimers !y2fz.HIyUQ
>>157942
top one's the uv(0) i think but jesus christ the image difference is minute
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157958
Evidence does seem to suggest that that's the case...
>> Anonymous
Is there a comparison with a bright light source in the picture? Coating is supposed to bring down glare and internal reflections, so supposedly there could be differences between filters/coatings.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
The main things you should be paying extra for with filters is proven increased flare resistance for the more difficult situations, such as when shooting directly into light sources, and for durability. A B+W is easier to clean and tends not to bind on the threads.

Hoya multicoated top end gets about as good as it gets for flare resistance, but if you want durability with that resistance then B+W would be the next step.

As for the idea that shooting with them turns shots all muddy, it seems to be rather overblown now I've seen the shots. Most the time I'm not shooting into direct light, but it is nice to have at times.

Some of the cheap filters (like the $10 ones) are better than others for flare and cleaning too. S&W ones seem to be one of the better cheap filters for cleaning and flare resistance.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
>>158077

PIC RELATED

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2007:11:18 13:20:26Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3500Image Height2250
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
>>158084

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:17 17:50:40Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height258RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
>>158085

Have a look at the file name. Each test is with one of these filters. Photos were taken at 12mm. No quiz, just uploading these to show you that even with the generic filters, if you get the right one it can be quite effective. S&W is easy to clean and quite robust, the Super Slim is about 1mm thick. It's tiny, so good for wide angle lenses. As a bonus it is quite flare resistant.

IMAGE DUMPING.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:17 19:20:19Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length12.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
>>158085

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:17 19:19:56Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length12.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
>>158085

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:17 19:20:07Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length12.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
>>158085

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:17 19:19:30Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length12.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
>>158085

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:17 19:19:43Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length12.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Opteka doesn't perform as well as the others and seems a step down from the S&W (which is tougher and easier to clean than most filters, especially the non-B+W class, probably something to do with the way they did the coatings).

Even then, the main thing to remember that these shots are directly into the bare light bulb, like a retard would do.

The Super Slim is $18 on eBay with delivery for a 77mm size. It works almost as well as the Hoya and it's suitable for very wide angles. It cleans up quite nicely with the microfibre cloths. Not as easy for cleaning as the S&W though. The Hoya is the best for flare resistance, but not as nice for cleaning. The S&W is the best for cleaning and does not bad at the rest of the optical tests. Very cheap too. The Opteka wasn't impressive for flare resistance, but it was okay for cleaning up afterwards. It's not very cheap compared to other offerings either, so you may as well go for the other options.

Image degradation is pretty much non-existant with these multicoated filters, so flare resistance and ease of cleaning is the only deciding factors, I would say. That and price.

I keep hearing about how the filters will "ruin" the image but it has been completely blown out of proportion over the years.

The best will always be a hood and no filter, but with a good filter and a hood it is an extremely close second, as you can see. For the majority of your shots you will never actually get the benefit of an expensive filter. You'll be getting your money's worth when you push them like this, but for the majority of shooting conditions you will never be able to tell the difference from a POS $10 filter and a super duper expensive filter.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Price-wise: Hoya was the most expensive, then Opteka, then Super Slim, then S&W.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
My UV is a 77mm KODO and was sfa from ebay. Its covered in shit and my 11-18's front element isnt.

I quite happily sacrifice (almost no) image degredation for not having to replace the front element of my lense.

Priorities people.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>158116

Yup, an important thing to remember.

I think it's worth showing off just now though that the filters that cost next to nothing aren't always that bad. £9 for a super slim filter that performs very well and if it's likely to get covered with muck or damaged like Butterfly's then it is probably wise not to spend any more than you have to.
>> Anonymous
This is quite possibly the worst way you can do a "test" holy fuck.
>> Anonymous
>>158149

What's wrong with it?
>> Anonymous
>>158097

Thanks. Very informative. Hoya looks close to no-uv.

>>158149

Maybe instead of being useless flamefag you could propose a correct testing method.