There is a YT series of videos (about 30hrs total) from Krolop & Gerst, a German camera shop, interviewing the head designer of Zeiss lenses. They asked him exactly this question and his answer was that every lens he owns has a protective filter on it.
I shoot events and use both UV filters and lens hoods. Why? Because I can't control my environment. Not using these is fine in a clean studio environment but in the real world you need to protect your lens. Another thing to consider. I recently checked-up on a camera and lenses I've had in storage for a little over 30 years. The lenses have UV filters attached and after removing them to check the lens front element I observed that they were still pristine. My biggest concern in storing this equipment was that the lenses might become fungus infected. They weren't and I put that down to the use of filters. As for lens hoods, I've had the "I never use lens hoods" argument directed at me and I usually respond "Then that must limit your options when shooting in sunlight". It's a tool, use it as needed.
For every lens I buy, I buy a B+W Master clear MRC Nano 007M glass filter. I also use lens hoods quite often. Not to protect the front element, but for what lens hoods are intended, to protect against glare/flare. I also buy a metal screw-in lens cap, because I constantly lose the plastic caps and I got tired of having to replace them.
Hello Mark, thanks for attempting to dispell this long standing myth about UV filters. One more test was needed to confirm that UV filters don't degrade image quality. Corner sharpness and chromatic aberration, especially with ultra wide lenses. The peripheral light rays have to pass through more glass than the central rays do as they enter the filter at an angle. This causes a deviation of different wavelengths to different extents. Beyond 50mm, this shouldn't be a problem but below 24mm, I've noticed some UV filters adding some CA and reducing contrast in the corners. Would be nice if you could update the video with a test for these. Thank you.
I had a K&F 95mm UV filter (the one rated top choice) on my Nikon Z 180-600mm lens. I noticed parallel lines of lights in shots when the incident lights were coming at certain angles. I experimented with multiple shots with & without filter. I confirm that the artifacts are caused by this particular filter. After changing to a B+W UV filter, I don't get the same issues.
I’ve been taking professional photos since the early 1990’s, starting with film then switching to digital. I’ve put UV filters on every single lens I’ve ever owned. I rarely take the filters off when taking pictures. I recommend that everyone purchase UV filters to protect their lenses.
The german channel Krolop & Gerst made a series of videos about lense engineering. The expert was very clear on that point. The vulnerability of the front lense coating is key. He highly recommended protecting the coating against micro scratches. Those scratches come over time and they indeed impact the image quality. Using a clear filter is the easiest way to do so.
I think you're missing an important aspect here - the effect of a filter on image detail is dependent on the focal length being used. With longer focal lengths you'll start to see more differences in image detail between cheap and expensive filters.
This is especially true for superzooms. Those lenses will use a tiny part of the filter at the long end of the zoom range and thus small imperfections will be immediately noticeable.
I think it should be other way around - longer focal length is more perpendicular ray to the glass, less affected by a layer of clear, flat glass (its still a straight line). Short focal lenght should have more influence as it shifts light rays when transitioning between materials (also short have more risk of additional vignetting). So if there is a degradation of image quality, it should be visible on the edges of frame on wide angle lenses, not on longet focal length
@@anupew3276 That is kind of true for primes. When you are working with zooms, the area of the filter being utilized to form the image circle reduces as you zoom in. Tiny imperfections in the glass, filter layers and coatings get magnified in the process.
This has been my experience with the Sigma 150-600mm. I was using a Sigma uv filter. I was getting an almost "ghosting" near 600mm, shooting birds in flight. Took off the filter and nice clear images. This is the only lens that I have ever noticed this.
I shoot on the beach a lot. There is sand blowing and salt water in the air so I have filters on all but my macro lenses. I know that lenses are more hard wearing than filters, but given that I have to replace the filters every couple of years due to wear they are definitely doing some protection. Some of my lenses can’t take a filter due to a protruding front element, for example my nikkor 16mm f2.8, it has never been bumped or scratched, but there are marks on the front element which become visible when stopped down beyond f11. I’ve never noticed any loss in quality from a new filter. When your filter is scratched up, that will degrade the quality. But better to replace that than a new lens
Years ago (decades) as a starving college student working my way through college at a professional camera / graphics art store I had permission to test cameras, lenses, film, filters. I put booklets together with the results. Filters were coated, only Takumar lenses were multicoated. I got exactly the same results across color, slide, and B&W under controlled conditions. Many news photographers did not use filters. It was sort of a ‘in-crowd’ mentality: only ‘wannabes’ used UV filters. After I talked to some who had lenses broken and threads dented (possible to repair but painful) and showed my book, attitudes started to change. It was cool these guys, some Vietnam war correspondents, were able to adjust their thinking based on objective testing. That’s the thing: a pro should always be willing to change habits based on fact! By the way, a filter saved a very expensive lens of mine last week. Nothing as dramatic as a cave crawl, just arthritic hands. And I do like the K&F filters best. Easier to grip, and gorgeous quality.
Rokkors were known for their coatings & color consistency & good enough to manuf. some Leica lenses. Takumars claimed in the 80's(?) they had 7 or 9 coatings. If true that's quite a feat as the index of the sandwiched layer has to be n2 = sqrt(n1*n3) & u have to get materials besides the right index , that stick to each other && repeat for 7 sandwiches & the host glass surface. As late as the early 70's the Zeiss, Rollei & Schneider lenses for 6x6 Rollei slr were better than the Zeiss made for the foreigner, namely Hassle. Deep colored coatings etc.for Rolleiflex & later the SLX. etc, etc. In what years did u do the tests? Quite a bit of work ! Any interesting findings on lenses ?
@@user-pg5rt7ju4f I did the tests from 1973-1975 over several generations of lenses. It was a tremendous amount of work. I think my manager was amused. I know the other employees were - they kept asking "why are you doing this!" I've always had a technical bent and just wanted to find out "the truth". That attitude stuck with me over the next 50 odd years. Once I started getting repeatable, reliable results and had something to show the interest from professionals got real. The store is long since closed, put out of business by the transition to digital and a changing market. Those were fun years.
FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE SAYS IT!!!! It's all crap these people talk about "ruining" but yea... they don't say that about the filmography users either! Been using UV filters since inception of my photography beginnings... never ruined or degraded NOTHING. Matter of fact, UV filters actually helped with light cast both studio and in the field.
I always keep some type of filter on my lens. It has saved two of my very expensive lenses from being damaged. I'm glad you pointed out the flaring issue. A good example is any phone that has a protector over the back camera will also cause flaring in low light especially when flash is used. Another possible issue is if the filter is not airtight and you are in a very humid environment, moisture could get in between the filter and the lens, and cause some fogging.
@@user-pg5rt7ju4f cases on a phone that protect the camera will cause flaring. You can also buy a filter for the camera on your phone similar to a camera, e.g. ND, Polarizer, UV. They are cheap but great at protecting your lens.
I came here expecting another opinion piece, and instead got a really well thought out and researched video with Gerald Undone levels of testing and examples. Thank you so much!
I’ve also noticed that the older a filter gets the more chance you have at seeing a color cast. The coatings seem to breakdown over time. But still it will be years upon years before it would ever be an issue.
Was taking images of a blacksmith, sparks flying. I then realised that the sparks had hit my filter and it had burnt spots all over it. Luckily much cheaper to throw away the filter than the lens, So I have a filter on all my lenses.
I really like using filters for the simple fact that I like being able to clean it with my t-shirt! I've been saying that for ages, and if I see the flare ,I just remove the filter for a while and take the shots with no filter.
All I can say is you must have fairly new windows and keep them very clean inside and out! I've taken a snap through windows here and there, usually because something interesting is happening outside and I don't have time to open the window or go outside. In every case, no matter how clean I thought the window was, there was haze or distortion in the final image.
I absolutely loved this video! You did an amazing job sharing personal experiences and debunking myths about UV and protective filters. The detailed tests on image quality and flare were incredibly insightful. It's clear a lot of effort went into providing practical advice.Great work!
Instead of a UV filter, I prefer to use a dedicated protector filter (such as Hoya's HDX Protector and Sigma's Protector Filter) for two reasons: they don't filter the light spectrum, and they use stronger glass. Digital cameras already have optimally calibrated UV filters on their sensor filter stacks, so the UV filtration of screw-on filters is unnecessary and in doubt only degrades the image.
Same. All my lenses have Hoya protector filters and I use lens hoods when I think the camera might get knocked. Protectors and hoods are $30 each and my cheapest lens would cost $400 to replace.
I bought the sigma filter some weeks ago and I love it, it is a quite beefy filter but, comparing it to the other UV filters I have it beats them all. I'll always buy sigma filters from now on
Total agreement, I use Gobi, now known as Urth, quality. Top tip put a small very thin elastic band over the filter thread, stops you from over tightening and stops them from coming loose.
I've always used a protective filter - UV or skylight. Then I watched a video which questioned their use. Think your sliding glass door test said it all!
Hi Mark - love this video - I purchased a UV cheap filter which I noticed when taking photos of lights at night had bad flaring - I ended up buying a good quality Japanese glass uv filter which eliminated this issue Cheers
Excellent advice, and thanks for the testing results! I had a similar experience as yours, using a hood but no filter on a Canon EF 24-70 II USM. Ouch. The front element got a few gouges. Thankfully, all mechanical and electronic functions are 100%, so now I'm trying to source a front lens group replacement to fix it myself. It can still take pictures, but image sharpness is affected and the outlines of the gouges are visible at f/16 or more. Lens hoods aren't protection from anything other than stray light.
Mark. I have had a UV, Skylight or CP filter on every lens I have owned since 1983. Would not go outside without one on the lens. Only exceptions are my Sigma 14-24, FujiFilm 8-16 and Nikkor 15mm as they have extended round front elements. For them, I have the FotoDiox adapters with CP or ND filters. Don't know how many times over the last 40 years this has saved my ass.
As an FYI, you can see image warping if you shoot through window glass, especially cheap, or old window glass. The warping isn't as noticeable with wide or even normal lenses, but can become a problem with long telephoto, especially fast lenses used wide open, looking at subjects that you know are supposed to have straight lines. This happens independent of if you are using optically flat filters - I don't think the quality of the filter matters too much.
This is a fantastic video: a logical, fact based assessment of filters. It’s great that you take the time and effort to produce such high quality work and the bonus of so much information for sources to obtain the gear you are testing. I also like the fact that you also set out a list of the equipment you use to produce your videos. You set a high standard! Many thanks for your excellent work.
Many people, myself included, have switched from shooting film to digital with a Fuji setup. When trying to get a film-like look, digital cameras and lenses are far too clinical much of the time My favourite filter is a 1/8 black pro mist filter. It makes photos feel much more organic and makes bright highlights less ugly. And it protects the lens!
This is interesting. I am one of those who thought UV filters created an issue with quality so it is interesting to find that you got different results. One thing I do see an issue with is when using a polarizer which I often do. Stacking filters on wide angles often cause vignette. I'll have to check that out with my current wide angle.
I've tried different filter and made LOTS of tests. My takeaways: 1. You should always use UV filter 2. After a year or two of usage, remove your filter and loot at it's surface and see how many micro scratches it has. If you had not filter all that will be on your lens. 3. Expansive filters are all good and have NO affect of details and NO affect on flares. 4. Avoid extremely cheap UV filter, they WILL ruin you shots in different not-so-standard situation and will give you HUGE additional flares. 5. Cheap (not extremely cheap!) filter with multilayer coating (MC) can be used and are not worse then VERY expansive. That's all... My current choice - K&F Contest K series. Cheap and good quality with 18 layer coating.
There was a study done that smashing the filter like you did the lens still impacted the inside lens, because filters are very delicate optical glass that offer very little protection, might stop you getting scratches on the main lens though over time.
Great video, and especially good point about how using filters leads to more frequent lens cleaning. I check my filters regularly and replace them every year or so due to wear and abrasion (mostly from cleaning). All that wear and abrasion would be on the lens if I wasn't using filters. FWIW in my testing I find that the Nikon NC filters have the best performance for flare, YMMV.
So, I've just bought a UV filter (after 15 years taking pictures) - I've just ordered my first 'pro-level' lens and all of a sudden I'm scared to damage it. I was worried about the many filter horror stories but your video has proved very reassuring (especially since you've recommended the filter I bought (K&F Nano-X). Thank you
"Oleophobic" is the term for a smudge resistant coating. I don't see the word in many circular lens filter descriptions but it is in some rectangular cinema filters such as the one you showed. I agree with your conclusions. I also hedge my bets by buying "thin" circular lens filters. The filter element is then a millimeter closer to the front lens element. I used to test tablets and "oleophobic" is often one of the specifications. One of my co-workers wouldn't wash the grease off his fingers after eating fried chicken for lunch. That kind of grease is really tough to clean!
I have put a filter on every lens I own, from the minute I take it out of the box. I have done simple tests and image quality is the same. Thank you for this video.
Yep, scratch a lens once... I use UV filters on any lens that I can put one one now, it's already saved one of my expensive telephoto lenses. The only time I really noticed a UV filter causing problems was pictures of the northern lights. The UV filter can cause "Newton Rings" to appear, so when taking pictures of northern lights take off the UV filters. The one lens I can't put a filter on is my Sony 14mm f/1.8, so I am extra careful with it. I have had good experience with the K&F filters and Sigma filters, the only filter I would not recommend is by Photorepublik, bad anti reflective coating, hard to keep smudge free and the seal around the ring fell out last trip, replacing with a K&F.
So happy to see the filters I have been using are the top of the list. One other thing the more expensive uv filters have brass frames which are less likely to get stuck when using multiple filters at once or step up rings. Great video Mark.
Good video. There are also some lenses that are only “weather sealed” with a filter installed on them (notably Canon). Always use a filter. Lenses are expensive to replace or repair, especially once they are exposed to weather.
Your contents are really of great quality and I find myself watching all of your vids despite the topic not being so interesting to me lol You have helped me saved tons of money. No wonder why you are growing so fast compared to the other channel I have also followed over the years. This filter thing also .... I have been using K&F Nano X series VND and also MCUV filter for all my lenses. I have tested this myself pre- vs post- installation and the UV filter does not have any impact on the image quality. The color shift is really NOT noticeable! and it is so easy to clean + 28 layer coating and the most important is that all these great things at such a low cost.
I’m in UK, during our Covid ‘lockdown’ and for something to do I did a fairly big testing of UV and/or ‘protective’ filters that I had ( they were all good quality but different manufacturers) shooting different lenses, different formats, aps-c and FF. At the end I had quite a lot of images! I sent 10 samples, a mix of with and without filters, double blind, to 10 people, there was essentially no consistent repeatable identification of which were with or without.
Thanks Mark, I also have had the case where I had a reazonable new lens scratched because I wasn't using such a filter and sand got between the front element and the lens cap. It wasn't visible in image but the scratch could be seen on that element. Reflection is a thing indeed. I always use a sunhood for this and move the camera around a bit to spot flaring, then temporary remove the filter for that. I have a blower, brush and spare filter present at all time.
Thanks for your tests. After 45 years using UV-filter I follow the advice of some RUclips photograph. Result, the same as you, a scrap on the front lens but in the egde of the lens and I can continue to use it. Indo not care if I got a minimun less picture quality as long I have a lens which is ok.
This is my first time watching this channel. So all of his commentary about past videos went right over my head. This video is a very good analysis of UV filters. One test missing in this video is whether or not a UV filter will make a difference. They don’t make much of difference with most cameras. I do not know if he has ever done rigorous testing, but your images will be the same with or without a UV filter. Nearly every digital image sensor assembly has a UV layer built into it. Personally, I do not use UV filters. I use high quality Clear filters, instead. I do not need the UV filtering. I want to keep my front element clean. Cleaning or replacing a filter is a lot cheaper than replacing a front element. There is some grain of truth about UV filters degrading image quality, especially with DSLRs. It isn’t the filter glass that might degrade image quality. The filtering can impair the AF sensor’s ability to focus. This is especially true with CPL and ND filters. ND filters reduce the amount of light reaching the AF sensor. So focus without one mounted on your camera and you’ll be fine. CPL filters can remove phase information from the light, which wreaks havoc with phase detect AF systems. Again, focus without one mounted on your camera.
It's not even about the image quality. I use Kase filters (the rectangle filters you mention) but only attach them when on a tripod..however with rhe round filters I've had lenses drop, the UV filter shattered straight away - i was extremely fortunate not to scratch the lens from shards and removing the shattered UV filter and the lens cap did not come off .I would not suggest they are "protective" filters as they are extremely thin glass.
I use the Freewell V2, and while I find the image quality is unaffected (vs. no filter), two of mine already have small chips in the coating. The Freewell stuff doesn't seem nearly as robust as my B+W filters, for example, which I've owned for years and barely have any marks.
This! All of this. I used to teach photography at the local college, and told my students all of these reasons why they should use filters. I've had at least 3 students tell me stories similar to your "scratched" story, who all said the uv filter saved their lens.
I have 3 clear nikon 77mm filters on my desk, all shattered. Cost $210. Cost to repair those lenses if the front element was damaged, not to mention being without it for up to a month... $750. My nemesis is door knobs, table corners as it swings.
Hello Mark, I have been watching your videos and subscribed to your channel for some time now. I appreciate your non-nonsense and straightforward presentation style, high quality production values, common sense advice, all quite apart from that you are a fellow Victorian, and we share the same fantastic first name! Thank you for weighing in on this egregious issue and most importantly of all, providing hard evidence to support your conclusions. Most of the negativity around the value of protective lens filters is based on personal opinion and little else, in my experience. Your results are conclusive and totally convincing for the 95% of photographers, ie: those of us who do not work in a highly specialised field where optic performance has a scientifically proven impact on image quality. Needless to say, I am with you and have always used a reasonable quality protective filter on my cameras for over 40 years. This decision has always been based on the simple economic argument that faced with the prospect of replacing a comparatively cheap piece of filter glass compared to risking damage to an unprotected front lens element, is a no-brainer, as you so eloquently point out. Thank you for clearing that up!
I like K&F Concept filters and use them on DJI OSMO Pocket 3 cameras with great success. However I have recently purchased a K&F ND filter for my Leica and found that the filter's thread was very poor when compared with a german B+W filter. The german filter was silky smooth in attaching and removal, but the K&F 'scraped' a little.
I had a UV filter on my EF-M 55-200 when it took a dive off my counter onto the floor. The filter took all of the damage, the lens still works great. RIP that Tiffen UV filter, it saved that whole lens.
Thank you for presenting this information. Every field has a topic that's best left under the category of "religion and politics". Over the years I have found that whether to use a filter or not has often elicited emotional opinions that can't be changed. There are those out there that would never use a protective filter to their dying days.
I started my photography journey in the 1970's with my father's Camon Pellix camera shooting my school football match. Going through the decades, I have always shot with UV or Skylight 1A filter on my lenses. I have also used the Cokin filter system for creative shots. I cannot see any optical degradation while using filters. As with everything else, it is important that you understand how things work and how to avoid exposing the weaknesses in your equipment or your technique. It is all too easy to blame everything else when something goes wrong.
Thank you for your input. I do use UV filters on my lenses; I don’t care what people say, as no one will replace any of them if I follow unconventional advise; I have true vintage lenses (40-50 yrs old). Also, when editing imagery digitally, I can give the look I intend to, I can even add light flares if needed. I am responsible for my own equipment, thus, it is my choice.
First thing, wherever possible I will always use a filter or plain glass. It's very difficult to find a protection filter for wide angle lenses. Second thing. One person mentioned the effect is greater when using a really long lens. I agree to this but find it not worth complaining about. Third thing. Im a bird watcher and own four different sets of binoculars of verying powers. (I'm not including my spotting scope for obvious reasons😂.) One thing I noticed was when I looked through my auto front window compaired to being outside. The low power, (7 and 10 power), had no real problems looking through the window. My 15 and 20 power binoculars could look good enough but was "more" difficult to focus. I figure both camera lenses and binoculars are actually similar. Yes I know your not suppose to look through a car window but sometimes it's a semi-emergency.
I agree with that. I always use filters. Even if I will loose some quality my lenses are safer. When shooting in rain I need to wipe the front before every shot. I don't want to do that on the lens. A lens hood is mostly only clipped on. If the fall is bad it just breaks or slips off. And even if not it will only help well with tele lenses. For wide angle it would need to fall exactly correct not to damage anything. And lens hoods are annoying if you change the lense often and only have a small bag. I still use them as often as feasible. I had my experiences with several scratched filters when being in a narrow area with sharp elements. I can exchange the filter for cheap or go on without one on vacation in contrast to having nothing for the remaining time. I even had the camera falling once. I used a strap which was above the sweater hood. When I put on the hood the strap came to the front and left the camera to gravity. It fell on the edge of the filter which broke. The lens only has a very small scratch on the filter thread. I just did a small test on my own comparing lenses and also removed the (cheap) filters for some pictures. I can see a slight improvement in detail, but only barely.
I use UV filters preferably made by Hoya, Nikon or Fuji. To protect the lens. From these Hoya and Fuji give less flare when the sun hits the filter/lens. I have had ‘cheaper’ Filters, but sometimes the glass seemed not planparallel. I couldn’t get my lens sharp when turned to infinity…
I use a K&F Concept 1/8 mist filter on my Tamron 28-200 lens with the hood on, which I mainly use for hiking/biking/backpacking adventures. It is the lens the usually stays on my camera 99% of the time and I don't use the lens cap. If I bring a wide prime lens to supplement the Tamron for a specific shot, I don't put a filter. If I'm using my prime lenses for walking around town, I don't use any protective filters, just have the hood attached. Same thing with the 70-200 and 100-400, the hoods are so deep that it doesn't warrant the use of a protective filter.
Protecting the lens is a better use for some "UV" filters than is blocking any UV. The Gobe UV filter I have blocks very little of my 365nm blacklight source , as compared to my eyeglasses which are nearly opaque at that wavelength.
Excellent video and I agree with your position. I’ve done similar tests, (not as many filters, of course) and there is one lens I have that shows considerable image quality degradation, regardless of the filter brand I’ve tried. That is the Sony 200-600 G lens. However, I tested the Sony 100-400 GM with and without a 1.4 teleconverter and I don’t see any appreciable difference with the filter. The best filter I have tried as far as glare is concerned is the Kase R-MCUV filter (tried Hoya, K&F, Tiffen, B+W, and Freewell) . I previously used Freewell, but noticed excessive flare in a number of shots towards a bright light. Especially on the wide end of the Sony 20-70 G lens. That, and the fact the Freewell magnets were weak, and I got poor customer service caused me to switch from them. I currently use Kase screw-on R-MCUV filters with the interior Kase magnetic ring screwed inside the filter, which allows me to slap an ND or CPL filter on quickly and easily without an external magnetic ring. The only downside side is the Kase screw on filter is a bit thick which prevents me from doubling up on magnetic filters without vignetting. They ain’t cheap (under-statement), but I am very happy with them.
I’ve been a professional for over 20 years and just use high-quality UV filters and I’ve never noticed any degradation but my lenses always stay pristinely clean and I just clean the filter and if I damage it, I buy another one without having to ship off to the mothership
I have been in photography since 1969. Back in the days of film we used tons of filters especially in color. When digital came along my greatest surprise was that we no longer needed to use color light balancing filters like the 81 and 82 series or conversion or color balance filters. I have heavily used polarizing filters. When we changed to digital the UV filter I put on my digital camera caused an amber shift in color similar to an 81 series filter. Another photographer told me about this same amber color shift problem he had. I know now that camera filter manufacturers are now making clear filters for digital cameras. I would recommend this new clear filter. One problem with film was its sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation and this caused a slight shift to the blue. We do not have that problem with digital. Strong UV filters were used in aerial photography. In black-and-white film I would use a Wratten #8 yellow filter to filter out the UV. This gave me skies with good tone rather than a very light sky. One of my major uses for UV filters in the days of film were to create my own custom-made diffusion filters by smearing a very fine touch of Vaseline on a UV filter to create a soft focus lens. This is where less is better. Many photographers would use this technique on the edge of a wide angle lens which I did, but you can use this technique and even now in the digital age. For normal to short telephoto lenses like for portraiture this works great. However, the longer focal length lens you have the finer the smear must be or you will just get out of focus junk. On a normal focal length lens the smear should be hardly noticed. This softness spreads the highlights in your photo giving you a romantic dream effect. I would use it in black-and-white portraits too. Experiment. I could show anyone samples. I also made my own matt box for soft portraits. women look great photographed this way.
I’ve taken to getting the UV filter and then ordering one of those cheap screw-in metal hoods that I can screw into front threads of the UV filter, giving me a simple way to use both. Those hood also come with a pinch snap style cap that fits the end if the hood. Works well.
My experience matches yours. As a photojournalist, I always had a UV filter on my lenses as I was often put in rough conditions where dirt, dust, and other particulates would get on the front element and potentially scratch it. Like you, I would use the end of my t-shirt to clean it off and go back to work. The only problem I ever saw was lens flares when I had a bright light in the frame. I had to remember to take the UV filter off when shooting nighttime sports.
I only use them when the situation demands an extra degree of protection these days. I often shoot at night when I travel and ended up doing a lot of torture testing. Zeiss was best for me, but still flares in challenging lighting - you get a small purple dot (I have Zeiss lenses in my glasses and they do this too). B+W Master gives a larger blob in the same situations and Hoya Antistatic was more like traditional lens flare. You'll also see ghosting if you shoot at night with all the brands I tested.
For those who use the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2, you need to use a UV filter because many people who didn’t use a filter reported that the front element coating was damaged.
Hi Mark. Fantastic video as usual. I am one of those people who never uses a filter. Now you make me think twice about putting them on all my lenses. I shot weddings for a few years which is a run-n-gun type of photography. Even then I did not use filters. Now that all I am doing is landscapes, I do not use them because I am using a Maven magnetic CPL filter for some of my images and I am not sure how to make the combo work. As it is my magnetic filter causes vignetting on my Tamorn 17-28 on the 17mm end. Adding more filters would probably make matters worse.
I only take out the filter when I'm getting an undesireable lens flare in my images. That usually means only when I shoot the moon with my tele. Thanks for the video and the testing.
I used to use UV filters, until one of my lenses took a fall and smashed the filter. The glass of the filter was what gouged the front element. I realized that it was not clear for any given impact if the filter would help or hurt. If I’m going to the beach or on the ocean, I’d likely put the filter back on. I agree that the image degradation from a decent filter is probably not an issue.
I had a case where i was shooting a handball match and some idiot touched the front of my lens. Luckily i had a (high quality) filter on. In handball players use resin to have better grip and extremely harsh cleaners are needed to get it off of anything. I had to throw away the filter as the coatings got damaged. But i was happy it wasn’t my front element.
There is a color cast, flaring, and clarity difference between cheap ND and variable ND filters and expensive ones, but many sub $100 variable ND filters are much better than some very expensive brands. I highly recommend K&F Nano-X line for just about anything as it straddles that fine line between amazing quality and amazing value. You may find yourself paying triple the price but not noticing a difference.
I've read plenty of forum posts on DPReview about this filter use. Many users go with don't use. As digital cameras have UV filter over sensor and front elements are tougher than the filters. I do have a few varied size Heliopan UV filters for the purpose, but slacked off using. Reconsidering. Nikon DX and FX, city walk around use most often.
Same experience here. I almost always use a UV filter on my lens. The only time I don’t is when I’m going out specifically to take infrared photos because screwing the UV filter off, screwing the IR filter on and then back again is too much hassle. I once took a shot of a building through a grimy train window at an angle of about 20 degrees. I did see any degradation and neither can anyone else.
Nikon makes multi-coated neutral clear lens protector "filters" UV filters will change image quality outdoors, and not always in a bad way. They are good at removing haze, for example. But, the nikon neutral clear is a better option if we are just looking for protection.
I used various filters based on shooting situations, and always pre-prepared them during packing before heading out from home/office. example if its going to to be sandy, climbing or wet conditions, I will just pop on the necessary filter. if there is flares or bright light, I will just switch to ND filter. this filter does protect lens from accidental damages. for a few times, my camera just blown off or knocked over by people. only the filter broke or scratches, but my lens still alright. only for my fisheye lens, unfortunately I don't have a filter for that, that resulted in rough permanent scratches.
Hi Mark, I've heard all these reasons not to use a protective filter on my lens. But, I like you, had an incident where a very expensive lenses fell out of my backpack because I forgot to zipper it up. I did have a UV filter on the lens so that broke but the lens element was fine. Phews. Ever since then, I always use a protective filter. However, instead of UV filters, I opted for B+W Nano Coated Clear filters since I really don't need UV protection on a digital camera (since they handle that at the sensor level). UV filters were mainly important for film photography.
I always keep a UV filter on every lens. I used to do scuba diving and on one dive my expensive wide angle UW lens touched a sharp rock and badly scratched it. Ever since I buy a UV filter for any new lens. I have always argued I never heard anyone say 'Your image was ruined because you obviously had a UV filter fitted'. I often shoot landscapes in wet weather and wipe the filter when it gets wet. Also, no matter how careful you are when cleaning the front element, it will definitely degrade over time due to minute scratches. I also go one step further and keep an internal clip-in sensor protector so that I don't have to clean the sensor. So I completely agree with you. Thanks for the controlled test.
My take as a hobbyist - a decent quality protective filter is a good investment to provide basic protection on the lenses. Unlike professional photographers who have multiple backup lenses, insurance coverage, and loaner/ priority repair/ discounted repair programmes (Canon CPS; Fujifilm FPS; Nikon NPS etc.), most of us simply aren't in a position where we can just readily write off damages to the lenses that could have been prevented by a filter. Also, if you've a lense that is out of production - e.g. if you muck around with vintage lenses like me, you can't even get the lenses repaired. It's not as trivial as "lets just replace the front element" like with modern lenses. Sidenote: On the very expensive end of things (at least with Canon), some of the lenses are designed with a readily replaceable front element that's meant to be very cost effective to replace in case of damage. I know that most of their super-telephoto lenses (for sports and wildlife) do have this in place and it can be as cheap as $200~300 to replace the front element including service fees (on a lense that costs high-4 to 5 digits). It doesn't need to be something on the price scale of B+W. Just make sure the filter is actually made from optical glass and has an AR multi-coat. There are plenty of these available for $15 to $30 a pop (depending on size). If the filter costs $3 to $5 brand new, you might want to steer clear of it - odds are it's resin based, or doesn't have a multicoat, or could have a colour cast. Personally, I use Hakuba XC-Pro & Marumi EXUS protective filters on my lenses and have not had any issues. They use optical glass (German Schott for both) and have nano coating (oil and water resistant coat for easy cleaning). Both also have an ultra thin frame which is more important for WA lenses. Very affordable stuff without the price tag of a B+W. K&F Concept also does have good products but they don't seem to make any purely protective filters, only UV filters (though these are basically purely protective in the digital age). A lens hood would also provide some additional protection and helps with flare though that could lend some artistic flair 😛in certain shots.
Great topic choice. In years past, I always used a uv but since I became a RUclips viewer, I stopped using due to everyone’s pooh poohing their use. Just switched camera system to Nikon from Fuji and restarted using as Mapcamera here in Japan gives a free uv when you purchase a lens. Protect my investment. You raise a good question though… which makers are best??? That’s what I’d like to know. Also, I really don’t understand ND Filters (which stops to use and when)? Would like to understand this better. Not a fan of Amazon as I find them convenient but not less expensive. Also, too many low grade Chinese mfg’s on products that sell on price. What am I sacrificing? Coatings have to have an impact??? Right? Why else would the premier maker’s use them. Good episode! Thanks
I do nature and wildlife photography. Frequently at dirty and sandy environment. Got the RF 24-105 mm f4 L and the RF 100-500 mm f4.5-7.1 L with Canon R6 Mark II. On both lenses a Hoya UV and the orginal hoods. Made shots without the UV also but do not see a great difference. Mind that also replacing the lens cap can give scraps on a unplotected front glass.
Right! The issue of reducing image quality with quality filters is not accurate. Do we concern ourselves if a lens has one more element? Wouldn’t that element also degrade the images?
I’ve used them in the past, don’t really bother anymore, unless I’m using a CPL, everyone’s different, some people have more accidents than others, for whatever reasons. And yes it could happen to anyone at anytime, I own quite a few relatively expensive lenses and I’ve luckily never had any issues, I don’t worry about it anymore, it’s all insured and I do take care of my equipment.
I never used UV filters,. Instead, I use lens caps and then drive myself crazy by setting them down, throwing in the camera bag etc, only concerned with the image. I've probably spent as much as 15 minutes retying to locate later. I did just purchase a Maven filter kit which comes with a magnetic UV - splash guard filter. I won't hesitate to use it. Your video is excellent and raises my opinion on using UV filters substantially.
Filters do affect optical performance if they are not true optical flats AND used on telephotos. Years ago I found this out the hard way with a Hoya on a 300mm f/4. The filter introduced a lot of astigmatism which has the effect of smearing fine detail. Initially I had thought the lens was a dud because I had bought it used, but everything was great after I ditched the filter. I would run the tests again using a telephoto lens and also check corner performance. And BTW, avoid cleaning any optical surface with your T-shirt. You're slowing sandpapering your lens with microscopic grit. If your lens has been collecting dust from a desert hike, imagine what you t-shirt is collecting?
I have MC filters on all my lenses. In my slide film days , I had 81A on some lenses & they were never off unless I had to use filters for B&W. I still have a couple of old brass B+W filters & brass does not stick to aluminum (as they are not brothers/cousins; ref: Feynman lectures). I always use a hood; if a lens does not come w/ one I'd always search for an appropriate one. To shoot in a blizzard or heavy rain, I'd get a plastic (shopping/garbage) bag w/ holes cut in the right places for lens & vf & rubber band to hold the plastic over a good hood ( a deep one for 70-200 is excellent ). A film winder/motor drive is essential to reduce a lot of hassles. That was my film days : filter, hood, bag, rubber band & motor drive & a place to hide for changing films. Haven't done that w/ digital which is simpler w/o film loading+shelter in the elements. I, now being decades older, will brave those conditions again w/ digital & transparent bags. P.S. So often I see a lot of people shooting w/ the hood mounted in the reverse & in cases prob. partially blocking the zoom ring. They have to think & learn sth. by themselves.
Having a nice quality MCUV filter was a must even 20 years ago. That was the RULE no. 1! Even professionals doing fashion shows, they all used protective filter as well. in 2005, I was spending a lot of money on B+W MCUV filters for my Minolta G lenses. I just believed in the top quality of B+W or german brands. Now almost 2 decade passed, and I realized there were a very big leap on Optical technology and it's becoming really difficult to tell the top notch brands doing the far superior job against cheaper brands in terms of image quality. (That means, even cheaper brands have equivalent technological advancement too). So, last year when I started up my photography hobby again, I tried K&F filters (NANO-X) series on my Sony GM II lenses. Only reason why I have chosen K&F was.. they were using Asahi Glass Co's element. Asahi class is one of the world's top Glass makers for Automobile, medical, and other industry. I had a relative who used to work at Asahi glass co for 30 years before in Japan. Now, I have no issue with this K&F Nano-X filter on my 77 and 82 mm GM II lenses. Just today, I ordered 2 filters from Kase in China for Anti-laser protection. Anti-Laser protection filters are not cheap. 100 bucks a pop but hope it will save my CMOS from Laser when I go for event shooting.
Many years ago in a popular magazine filters were tested due to the question of affecting the image quality. The results were a mixed bag. The bottom line was a resounding YES. the thickness of s filter displaces focussing due to diffraction. it was not seen in DSLRs as focussing is done through the lens but rangefinders (Leica was used) did show a change in accuracy. Further when the lines per mm were tested some filters were much better than others. The brand of filter made a major difference but the best reduced the resolution by about 15%, the worst by a wopping 40%. At the time even fine grain film was often outperformed by lenses and the loss was not seen in any results but microfilm did! Protection is a goodthing even today as lenses pretty much outperform most digital imagers. More of an effect is edge sharpness as on wide lenses the images passes through a larger thickness of the filter. Cine and Video is of such low image quality that filter use far outweighs the risks. As well, in cine there is a clear filter of the same brand as any effect filter later to be used to avoid any focus shift. Often effect filters filters make focussing difficult so the focus puller is often assigned to switch filters. In practicality, a UV filter is there only for protection as lenses with 4 or more elements do not pass any UV at all even non coated optics. I never use a UV filter as work in a studio is fairly safe. Outside I always do as I find myself taking pictures with the camera on my eyes. No mirrorless! Color shifts are of no concern on auto white balance. If there is a difference, blame the white balance circuitry of thecamera. On manual, it may have a bitof effect like you said. My money is on using a thin brand name filter and a lenshood. Inexpensive insurance! Finally, polarizers cause vignetting! The wider the lens the more you see it. Rinus
I’ve used uv filters for over 30 years a mix of brands, Hoya, B & W, K & F and I’ve never had an issue it’s a lot cheaper to replace a filter than a main camera lens but invest in a descent filter there is no impact on image quality it’s a myth. You don’t hear landscape photographers who use filters all the time saying oooo no I can’t use them it degrades the image 🤔 So protect your lens with a UV filter it far cheaper than damaging your lenses and keep your lenses pristine and better trade in prices on your gear too.
The only case where I saw a strong degradation on image quality was when I tried a cheap UV filter on a Sigma 150-600 Sports. The sports version uses 105mm filters, which are very expensive. The decision to save some money literally ended up in a cheap filter with cheap performance. For almost 3 months I wasn't satisfied with the image quality, frequently having problems with sharpness and focus hunting. Things were just not ok with that lens. One day, I decided to remove the filter and voilá, the lens was in fact very good and sharp. Except for that case, all my lenses have UV/clear filters in front of it. Filters can also help a lot when you are shooting on dirty/windy/rainy places. If the filter gets dirty you can quicly replace it with a clear one, not even worrying of cleaning (and potentially scratching) it in the field.
Thank you for this test! Honestly I have always been on the "the hood is enough" side, mainly because having multiple sizes to deal with is kind of a pain, but I'm going to get some to use at least in more risky situations. In any case for wide angle lenses getting a filter is generally a piece of cake, even the worst filter you can find won't degrade image sharpness too much. But when you are dealing with long lenses it gets harder: wide angle lenses have high diopter, so it means that if the filter has imperfections (that you can see as spotty diopters over the glass) the high diopter of the lens will outpower the imperfections. The longer the lens the lower its diopter is, so imperfections on the filter will be felt a lot more. As an example I have a VERY cheap polarizer, I used it quite a bit on my Zeiss 18 mm, with perfect results. One day I tried it on a 200 mm lens, even just turning the filter you could see the image moving in a wonky way
I tested my recommended filter at 600mm and couldn't pick the difference, but it was only a few test shots. A few people have shared the same information about the longer focal lengths, so I will do some more detailed testing.
@@markwiemels Probably they are all quite good then, my filter was if I remember correctly a 5€ polarizer, that is made with two glasses with a more involved construcion and glass type, probably a simple transparent filter doesn't need to lower its quality that much to be able to be sold for cheap. But in any case if there's a difference in sharpness you'll see more clearly with longer lenses, and reflection performance with wide angle lenses
FILTER RECOMENDATIONS (affiliate links)
Top Choice (still affordable) - geni.us/L02WWdk or geni.us/1x3S4M
Ultra-Budget Option - geni.us/U0wSc
Blast Proof Option (most protection but flare is slightly worse) - geni.us/Au3dO or geni.us/tPOm
Hoya is popular in Australia. I've been happy with them. But then, I never did on and off tests!
There is a YT series of videos (about 30hrs total) from Krolop & Gerst, a German camera shop, interviewing the head designer of Zeiss lenses. They asked him exactly this question and his answer was that every lens he owns has a protective filter on it.
Wow! That's great info.
I take the lens off my cameras so they don't effect the image quality.😂
😂 nice one. And then because they said exposure is the key I aim towards the sun
That's what I though exactly XD. The more expensive the lens, the more glass. OH NO MORE LAYERS
Hehehe!
I go even further by taking apart the sensor on my FX3.
I'd like to inform you there's still filters on the sensor.
the UV filter is very important piece of equipment - it allows you to sell your used lens at a higher price
I shoot events and use both UV filters and lens hoods. Why?
Because I can't control my environment. Not using these is fine in a clean studio environment but in the real world you need to protect your lens.
Another thing to consider. I recently checked-up on a camera and lenses I've had in storage for a little over 30 years.
The lenses have UV filters attached and after removing them to check the lens front element I observed that they were still pristine.
My biggest concern in storing this equipment was that the lenses might become fungus infected. They weren't and I put that down to the use of filters.
As for lens hoods, I've had the "I never use lens hoods" argument directed at me and I usually respond "Then that must limit your options when shooting in sunlight". It's a tool, use it as needed.
Why would you keep lenses in storage for 30 years?
I also still have my Canon AE1 with 50 mm, 35 mm and a zoom. Just for fun and memory :)
For every lens I buy, I buy a B+W Master clear MRC Nano 007M glass filter. I also use lens hoods quite often. Not to protect the front element, but for what lens hoods are intended, to protect against glare/flare. I also buy a metal screw-in lens cap, because I constantly lose the plastic caps and I got tired of having to replace them.
I second B+W filters. 5 of my lenses have them😊
Same
Same
Almost the same for me, using every lens with a B+W MRC 010UV
B&W Filters are made by Schneider Kreuznach, one of the finest Optical and cine lense manufactory on the same level like Zeiss and Leica lenses...
Hello Mark, thanks for attempting to dispell this long standing myth about UV filters. One more test was needed to confirm that UV filters don't degrade image quality. Corner sharpness and chromatic aberration, especially with ultra wide lenses. The peripheral light rays have to pass through more glass than the central rays do as they enter the filter at an angle. This causes a deviation of different wavelengths to different extents. Beyond 50mm, this shouldn't be a problem but below 24mm, I've noticed some UV filters adding some CA and reducing contrast in the corners. Would be nice if you could update the video with a test for these. Thank you.
Good info, thanks.
I only buy zeiss filters , at least i will know that image quality won’t suffer, this is one of those things where cheap is not recommended.
I had a K&F 95mm UV filter (the one rated top choice) on my Nikon Z 180-600mm lens.
I noticed parallel lines of lights in shots when the incident lights were coming at certain angles. I experimented with multiple shots with & without filter. I confirm that the artifacts are caused by this particular filter.
After changing to a B+W UV filter, I don't get the same issues.
I’ve been taking professional photos since the early 1990’s, starting with film then switching to digital. I’ve put UV filters on every single lens I’ve ever owned. I rarely take the filters off when taking pictures. I recommend that everyone purchase UV filters to protect their lenses.
uv filters have an extremely hi profit margin for sellers to hard-sell every time u buy a lens.
The german channel Krolop & Gerst made a series of videos about lense engineering. The expert was very clear on that point. The vulnerability of the front lense coating is key. He highly recommended protecting the coating against micro scratches. Those scratches come over time and they indeed impact the image quality. Using a clear filter is the easiest way to do so.
I think you're missing an important aspect here - the effect of a filter on image detail is dependent on the focal length being used. With longer focal lengths you'll start to see more differences in image detail between cheap and expensive filters.
This is especially true for superzooms. Those lenses will use a tiny part of the filter at the long end of the zoom range and thus small imperfections will be immediately noticeable.
I think it should be other way around - longer focal length is more perpendicular ray to the glass, less affected by a layer of clear, flat glass (its still a straight line). Short focal lenght should have more influence as it shifts light rays when transitioning between materials (also short have more risk of additional vignetting). So if there is a degradation of image quality, it should be visible on the edges of frame on wide angle lenses, not on longet focal length
@@anupew3276 Not in my experience, I've never seen a filter perform worse in terms of image detail on a wide-angle than a tele.
@@anupew3276 That is kind of true for primes. When you are working with zooms, the area of the filter being utilized to form the image circle reduces as you zoom in. Tiny imperfections in the glass, filter layers and coatings get magnified in the process.
This has been my experience with the Sigma 150-600mm. I was using a Sigma uv filter. I was getting an almost "ghosting" near 600mm, shooting birds in flight. Took off the filter and nice clear images. This is the only lens that I have ever noticed this.
I shoot on the beach a lot. There is sand blowing and salt water in the air so I have filters on all but my macro lenses. I know that lenses are more hard wearing than filters, but given that I have to replace the filters every couple of years due to wear they are definitely doing some protection. Some of my lenses can’t take a filter due to a protruding front element, for example my nikkor 16mm f2.8, it has never been bumped or scratched, but there are marks on the front element which become visible when stopped down beyond f11. I’ve never noticed any loss in quality from a new filter. When your filter is scratched up, that will degrade the quality. But better to replace that than a new lens
Years ago (decades) as a starving college student working my way through college at a professional camera / graphics art store I had permission to test cameras, lenses, film, filters. I put booklets together with the results. Filters were coated, only Takumar lenses were multicoated. I got exactly the same results across color, slide, and B&W under controlled conditions. Many news photographers did not use filters. It was sort of a ‘in-crowd’ mentality: only ‘wannabes’ used UV filters. After I talked to some who had lenses broken and threads dented (possible to repair but painful) and showed my book, attitudes started to change. It was cool these guys, some Vietnam war correspondents, were able to adjust their thinking based on objective testing. That’s the thing: a pro should always be willing to change habits based on fact! By the way, a filter saved a very expensive lens of mine last week. Nothing as dramatic as a cave crawl, just arthritic hands. And I do like the K&F filters best. Easier to grip, and gorgeous quality.
I agree with the use of K&F filters
Rokkors were known for their coatings & color consistency & good enough to manuf.
some Leica lenses. Takumars claimed in the 80's(?) they had 7 or 9 coatings. If true that's quite a feat as the index of the sandwiched layer has to be n2 = sqrt(n1*n3) & u have to get materials besides the right index , that stick to each other && repeat for 7 sandwiches & the host glass surface. As late as the early 70's the Zeiss, Rollei & Schneider lenses for 6x6 Rollei slr were better than the Zeiss made for the foreigner, namely Hassle. Deep colored coatings etc.for Rolleiflex & later the SLX. etc, etc.
In what years did u do the tests? Quite a bit of work ! Any interesting findings on lenses ?
@@user-pg5rt7ju4f I did the tests from 1973-1975 over several generations of lenses. It was a tremendous amount of work. I think my manager was amused. I know the other employees were - they kept asking "why are you doing this!" I've always had a technical bent and just wanted to find out "the truth". That attitude stuck with me over the next 50 odd years. Once I started getting repeatable, reliable results and had something to show the interest from professionals got real. The store is long since closed, put out of business by the transition to digital and a changing market. Those were fun years.
FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE SAYS IT!!!! It's all crap these people talk about "ruining" but yea... they don't say that about the filmography users either! Been using UV filters since inception of my photography beginnings... never ruined or degraded NOTHING. Matter of fact, UV filters actually helped with light cast both studio and in the field.
High quality filters do not impair image quality. Depending upon the camera brand, a filter can impair the ability of the camera to auto focus.
@@thesharpercoder change the camera brand then 😆
@@thesharpercoder yes, the glass in your window if active focus w/ IR
I always keep some type of filter on my lens. It has saved two of my very expensive lenses from being damaged. I'm glad you pointed out the flaring issue. A good example is any phone that has a protector over the back camera will also cause flaring in low light especially when flash is used. Another possible issue is if the filter is not airtight and you are in a very humid environment, moisture could get in between the filter and the lens, and cause some fogging.
what filter on a phone? The problem is flash & lens are only mm's apart !
@@user-pg5rt7ju4f cases on a phone that protect the camera will cause flaring. You can also buy a filter for the camera on your phone similar to a camera, e.g. ND, Polarizer, UV. They are cheap but great at protecting your lens.
I came here expecting another opinion piece, and instead got a really well thought out and researched video with Gerald Undone levels of testing and examples.
Thank you so much!
I’ve also noticed that the older a filter gets the more chance you have at seeing a color cast. The coatings seem to breakdown over time. But still it will be years upon years before it would ever be an issue.
also true of your lenses
Was taking images of a blacksmith, sparks flying. I then realised that the sparks had hit my filter and it had burnt spots all over it. Luckily much cheaper to throw away the filter than the lens, So I have a filter on all my lenses.
I really like using filters for the simple fact that I like being able to clean it with my t-shirt! I've been saying that for ages, and if I see the flare ,I just remove the filter for a while and take the shots with no filter.
Thank you Mark. I'll be using filters again from now on
All I can say is you must have fairly new windows and keep them very clean inside and out! I've taken a snap through windows here and there, usually because something interesting is happening outside and I don't have time to open the window or go outside. In every case, no matter how clean I thought the window was, there was haze or distortion in the final image.
cleaniness is the point! Glass is a super-cooled liquid & cheap glass for windows distort over time. See the amazing reflections from bldgs.
I absolutely loved this video! You did an amazing job sharing personal experiences and debunking myths about UV and protective filters. The detailed tests on image quality and flare were incredibly insightful. It's clear a lot of effort went into providing practical advice.Great work!
Thanks!
Instead of a UV filter, I prefer to use a dedicated protector filter (such as Hoya's HDX Protector and Sigma's Protector Filter) for two reasons: they don't filter the light spectrum, and they use stronger glass. Digital cameras already have optimally calibrated UV filters on their sensor filter stacks, so the UV filtration of screw-on filters is unnecessary and in doubt only degrades the image.
Same. All my lenses have Hoya protector filters and I use lens hoods when I think the camera might get knocked. Protectors and hoods are $30 each and my cheapest lens would cost $400 to replace.
I bought the sigma filter some weeks ago and I love it, it is a quite beefy filter but, comparing it to the other UV filters I have it beats them all. I'll always buy sigma filters from now on
HOYA antistatic protectors for me.
Thank you for all of your time and dedication Mark seriously appreciated
Total agreement, I use Gobi, now known as Urth, quality. Top tip put a small very thin elastic band over the filter thread, stops you from over tightening and stops them from coming loose.
I've always used a protective filter - UV or skylight. Then I watched a video which questioned their use. Think your sliding glass door test said it all!
Hi Mark - love this video - I purchased a UV cheap filter which I noticed when taking photos of lights at night had bad flaring - I ended up buying a good quality Japanese glass uv filter which eliminated this issue
Cheers
Excellent advice, and thanks for the testing results!
I had a similar experience as yours, using a hood but no filter on a Canon EF 24-70 II USM. Ouch. The front element got a few gouges. Thankfully, all mechanical and electronic functions are 100%, so now I'm trying to source a front lens group replacement to fix it myself. It can still take pictures, but image sharpness is affected and the outlines of the gouges are visible at f/16 or more.
Lens hoods aren't protection from anything other than stray light.
Mark. I have had a UV, Skylight or CP filter on every lens I have owned since 1983. Would not go outside without one on the lens. Only exceptions are my Sigma 14-24, FujiFilm 8-16 and Nikkor 15mm as they have extended round front elements. For them, I have the FotoDiox adapters with CP or ND filters. Don't know how many times over the last 40 years this has saved my ass.
As an FYI, you can see image warping if you shoot through window glass, especially cheap, or old window glass. The warping isn't as noticeable with wide or even normal lenses, but can become a problem with long telephoto, especially fast lenses used wide open, looking at subjects that you know are supposed to have straight lines. This happens independent of if you are using optically flat filters - I don't think the quality of the filter matters too much.
This is a fantastic video: a logical, fact based assessment of filters. It’s great that you take the time and effort to produce such high quality work and the bonus of so much information for sources to obtain the gear you are testing. I also like the fact that you also set out a list of the equipment you use to produce your videos. You set a high standard! Many thanks for your excellent work.
Many people, myself included, have switched from shooting film to digital with a Fuji setup. When trying to get a film-like look, digital cameras and lenses are far too clinical much of the time My favourite filter is a 1/8 black pro mist filter. It makes photos feel much more organic and makes bright highlights less ugly. And it protects the lens!
OMG! Great video Mark and absolutely spot on. We have been telling photographers this since the early 80's that UV filters will not affect quality .
Mark, really nice video. Took a lot of work to perform all these tests, much appreciated.
This is interesting. I am one of those who thought UV filters created an issue with quality so it is interesting to find that you got different results. One thing I do see an issue with is when using a polarizer which I often do. Stacking filters on wide angles often cause vignette. I'll have to check that out with my current wide angle.
I've tried different filter and made LOTS of tests. My takeaways:
1. You should always use UV filter
2. After a year or two of usage, remove your filter and loot at it's surface and see how many micro scratches it has. If you had not filter all that will be on your lens.
3. Expansive filters are all good and have NO affect of details and NO affect on flares.
4. Avoid extremely cheap UV filter, they WILL ruin you shots in different not-so-standard situation and will give you HUGE additional flares.
5. Cheap (not extremely cheap!) filter with multilayer coating (MC) can be used and are not worse then VERY expansive.
That's all... My current choice - K&F Contest K series. Cheap and good quality with 18 layer coating.
18 layers? they got too much time in China?
There was a study done that smashing the filter like you did the lens still impacted the inside lens, because filters are very delicate optical glass that offer very little protection, might stop you getting scratches on the main lens though over time.
Great video, and especially good point about how using filters leads to more frequent lens cleaning. I check my filters regularly and replace them every year or so due to wear and abrasion (mostly from cleaning). All that wear and abrasion would be on the lens if I wasn't using filters.
FWIW in my testing I find that the Nikon NC filters have the best performance for flare, YMMV.
So, I've just bought a UV filter (after 15 years taking pictures) - I've just ordered my first 'pro-level' lens and all of a sudden I'm scared to damage it. I was worried about the many filter horror stories but your video has proved very reassuring (especially since you've recommended the filter I bought (K&F Nano-X). Thank you
"Oleophobic" is the term for a smudge resistant coating. I don't see the word in many circular lens filter descriptions but it is in some rectangular cinema filters such as the one you showed.
I agree with your conclusions. I also hedge my bets by buying "thin" circular lens filters. The filter element is then a millimeter closer to the front lens element.
I used to test tablets and "oleophobic" is often one of the specifications. One of my co-workers wouldn't wash the grease off his fingers after eating fried chicken for lunch. That kind of grease is really tough to clean!
I have put a filter on every lens I own, from the minute I take it out of the box. I have done simple tests and image quality is the same. Thank you for this video.
Yep, scratch a lens once... I use UV filters on any lens that I can put one one now, it's already saved one of my expensive telephoto lenses. The only time I really noticed a UV filter causing problems was pictures of the northern lights. The UV filter can cause "Newton Rings" to appear, so when taking pictures of northern lights take off the UV filters. The one lens I can't put a filter on is my Sony 14mm f/1.8, so I am extra careful with it.
I have had good experience with the K&F filters and Sigma filters, the only filter I would not recommend is by Photorepublik, bad anti reflective coating, hard to keep smudge free and the seal around the ring fell out last trip, replacing with a K&F.
Thanks for the video. Your findings just reinforces my stand on protective filters, which I have had since the early-80s.
So happy to see the filters I have been using are the top of the list. One other thing the more expensive uv filters have brass frames which are less likely to get stuck when using multiple filters at once or step up rings. Great video Mark.
Thanks.
Good video. There are also some lenses that are only “weather sealed” with a filter installed on them (notably Canon). Always use a filter. Lenses are expensive to replace or repair, especially once they are exposed to weather.
Your contents are really of great quality and I find myself watching all of your vids despite the topic not being so interesting to me lol You have helped me saved tons of money. No wonder why you are growing so fast compared to the other channel I have also followed over the years. This filter thing also .... I have been using K&F Nano X series VND and also MCUV filter for all my lenses. I have tested this myself pre- vs post- installation and the UV filter does not have any impact on the image quality. The color shift is really NOT noticeable! and it is so easy to clean + 28 layer coating and the most important is that all these great things at such a low cost.
I’m in UK, during our Covid ‘lockdown’ and for something to do I did a fairly big testing of UV and/or ‘protective’ filters that I had ( they were all good quality but different manufacturers) shooting different lenses, different formats, aps-c and FF. At the end I had quite a lot of images! I sent 10 samples, a mix of with and without filters, double blind, to 10 people, there was essentially no consistent repeatable identification of which were with or without.
Thanks Mark, I also have had the case where I had a reazonable new lens scratched because I wasn't using such a filter and sand got between the front element and the lens cap. It wasn't visible in image but the scratch could be seen on that element. Reflection is a thing indeed. I always use a sunhood for this and move the camera around a bit to spot flaring, then temporary remove the filter for that. I have a blower, brush and spare filter present at all time.
Thanks for your tests. After 45 years using UV-filter I follow the advice of some RUclips photograph. Result, the same as you, a scrap on the front lens but in the egde of the lens and I can continue to use it.
Indo not care if I got a minimun less picture quality as long I have a lens which is ok.
This is my first time watching this channel. So all of his commentary about past videos went right over my head.
This video is a very good analysis of UV filters. One test missing in this video is whether or not a UV filter will make a difference. They don’t make much of difference with most cameras.
I do not know if he has ever done rigorous testing, but your images will be the same with or without a UV filter. Nearly every digital image sensor assembly has a UV layer built into it.
Personally, I do not use UV filters. I use high quality Clear filters, instead. I do not need the UV filtering. I want to keep my front element clean. Cleaning or replacing a filter is a lot cheaper than replacing a front element.
There is some grain of truth about UV filters degrading image quality, especially with DSLRs. It isn’t the filter glass that might degrade image quality.
The filtering can impair the AF sensor’s ability to focus. This is especially true with CPL and ND filters.
ND filters reduce the amount of light reaching the AF sensor. So focus without one mounted on your camera and you’ll be fine.
CPL filters can remove phase information from the light, which wreaks havoc with phase detect AF systems. Again, focus without one mounted on your camera.
It's not even about the image quality. I use Kase filters (the rectangle filters you mention) but only attach them when on a tripod..however with rhe round filters I've had lenses drop, the UV filter shattered straight away - i was extremely fortunate not to scratch the lens from shards and removing the shattered UV filter and the lens cap did not come off .I would not suggest they are "protective" filters as they are extremely thin glass.
IMO, the Freewell M2 are the best budget friendly magnetic filters. I use a CPL all the time, but the screw on ones can be hard to remove sometimes.
I use the Freewell V2, and while I find the image quality is unaffected (vs. no filter), two of mine already have small chips in the coating. The Freewell stuff doesn't seem nearly as robust as my B+W filters, for example, which I've owned for years and barely have any marks.
This! All of this. I used to teach photography at the local college, and told my students all of these reasons why they should use filters. I've had at least 3 students tell me stories similar to your "scratched" story, who all said the uv filter saved their lens.
I have 3 clear nikon 77mm filters on my desk, all shattered. Cost $210. Cost to repair those lenses if the front element was damaged, not to mention being without it for up to a month... $750. My nemesis is door knobs, table corners as it swings.
Hello Mark, I have been watching your videos and subscribed to your channel for some time now. I appreciate your non-nonsense and straightforward presentation style, high quality production values, common sense advice, all quite apart from that you are a fellow Victorian, and we share the same fantastic first name!
Thank you for weighing in on this egregious issue and most importantly of all, providing hard evidence to support your conclusions. Most of the negativity around the value of protective lens filters is based on personal opinion and little else, in my experience. Your results are conclusive and totally convincing for the 95% of photographers, ie: those of us who do not work in a highly specialised field where optic performance has a scientifically proven impact on image quality.
Needless to say, I am with you and have always used a reasonable quality protective filter on my cameras for over 40 years. This decision has always been based on the simple economic argument that faced with the prospect of replacing a comparatively cheap piece of filter glass compared to risking damage to an unprotected front lens element, is a no-brainer, as you so eloquently point out. Thank you for clearing that up!
haha! Thanks for the support!
Uv filter saved my lens at the hook lighthouse in Wexford. It took some time to remove the filter... lens was perfect
I like K&F Concept filters and use them on DJI OSMO Pocket 3 cameras with great success. However I have recently purchased a K&F ND filter for my Leica and found that the filter's thread was very poor when compared with a german B+W filter. The german filter was silky smooth in attaching and removal, but the K&F 'scraped' a little.
I had a UV filter on my EF-M 55-200 when it took a dive off my counter onto the floor. The filter took all of the damage, the lens still works great. RIP that Tiffen UV filter, it saved that whole lens.
Thanks for sharing your findings which are very informative mostly for beginners who still do not have a handle on therir cameras.
Thank you for presenting this information. Every field has a topic that's best left under the category of "religion and politics". Over the years I have found that whether to use a filter or not has often elicited emotional opinions that can't be changed. There are those out there that would never use a protective filter to their dying days.
I started my photography journey in the 1970's with my father's Camon Pellix camera shooting my school football match. Going through the decades, I have always shot with UV or Skylight 1A filter on my lenses. I have also used the Cokin filter system for creative shots. I cannot see any optical degradation while using filters. As with everything else, it is important that you understand how things work and how to avoid exposing the weaknesses in your equipment or your technique. It is all too easy to blame everything else when something goes wrong.
Thank you for your input. I do use UV filters on my lenses; I don’t care what people say, as no one will replace any of them if I follow unconventional advise; I have true vintage lenses (40-50 yrs old). Also, when editing imagery digitally, I can give the look I intend to, I can even add light flares if needed. I am responsible for my own equipment, thus, it is my choice.
First thing, wherever possible I will always use a filter or plain glass. It's very difficult to find a protection filter for wide angle lenses.
Second thing. One person mentioned the effect is greater when using a really long lens. I agree to this but find it not worth complaining about.
Third thing. Im a bird watcher and own four different sets of binoculars of verying powers. (I'm not including my spotting scope for obvious reasons😂.) One thing I noticed was when I looked through my auto front window compaired to being outside.
The low power, (7 and 10 power), had no real problems looking through the window. My 15 and 20 power binoculars could look good enough but was "more" difficult to focus. I figure both camera lenses and binoculars are actually similar.
Yes I know your not suppose to look through a car window but sometimes it's a semi-emergency.
I agree with that. I always use filters. Even if I will loose some quality my lenses are safer.
When shooting in rain I need to wipe the front before every shot. I don't want to do that on the lens.
A lens hood is mostly only clipped on. If the fall is bad it just breaks or slips off. And even if not it will only help well with tele lenses. For wide angle it would need to fall exactly correct not to damage anything. And lens hoods are annoying if you change the lense often and only have a small bag. I still use them as often as feasible.
I had my experiences with several scratched filters when being in a narrow area with sharp elements. I can exchange the filter for cheap or go on without one on vacation in contrast to having nothing for the remaining time. I even had the camera falling once. I used a strap which was above the sweater hood. When I put on the hood the strap came to the front and left the camera to gravity. It fell on the edge of the filter which broke. The lens only has a very small scratch on the filter thread.
I just did a small test on my own comparing lenses and also removed the (cheap) filters for some pictures. I can see a slight improvement in detail, but only barely.
I use UV filters preferably made by Hoya, Nikon or Fuji. To protect the lens. From these Hoya and Fuji give less flare when the sun hits the filter/lens.
I have had ‘cheaper’ Filters, but sometimes the glass seemed not planparallel. I couldn’t get my lens sharp when turned to infinity…
In case have sunlight hitting the uv filter and I see flare, in that case I unscrew the filter. In filmdays I prefeered Skylight 1B for slides.
I use a K&F Concept 1/8 mist filter on my Tamron 28-200 lens with the hood on, which I mainly use for hiking/biking/backpacking adventures. It is the lens the usually stays on my camera 99% of the time and I don't use the lens cap. If I bring a wide prime lens to supplement the Tamron for a specific shot, I don't put a filter.
If I'm using my prime lenses for walking around town, I don't use any protective filters, just have the hood attached. Same thing with the 70-200 and 100-400, the hoods are so deep that it doesn't warrant the use of a protective filter.
Protecting the lens is a better use for some "UV" filters than is blocking any UV.
The Gobe UV filter I have blocks very little of my 365nm blacklight source , as compared to my eyeglasses which are nearly opaque at that wavelength.
Excellent video and I agree with your position. I’ve done similar tests, (not as many filters, of course) and there is one lens I have that shows considerable image quality degradation, regardless of the filter brand I’ve tried. That is the Sony 200-600 G lens. However, I tested the Sony 100-400 GM with and without a 1.4 teleconverter and I don’t see any appreciable difference with the filter. The best filter I have tried as far as glare is concerned is the Kase R-MCUV filter (tried Hoya, K&F, Tiffen, B+W, and Freewell) . I previously used Freewell, but noticed excessive flare in a number of shots towards a bright light. Especially on the wide end of the Sony 20-70 G lens. That, and the fact the Freewell magnets were weak, and I got poor customer service caused me to switch from them. I currently use Kase screw-on R-MCUV filters with the interior Kase magnetic ring screwed inside the filter, which allows me to slap an ND or CPL filter on quickly and easily without an external magnetic ring. The only downside side is the Kase screw on filter is a bit thick which prevents me from doubling up on magnetic filters without vignetting. They ain’t cheap (under-statement), but I am very happy with them.
I’ve been a professional for over 20 years and just use high-quality UV filters and I’ve never noticed any degradation but my lenses always stay pristinely clean and I just clean the filter and if I damage it, I buy another one without having to ship off to the mothership
I have been in photography since 1969. Back in the days of film we used tons of filters especially in color. When digital came along my greatest surprise was that we no longer needed to use color light balancing filters like the 81 and 82 series or conversion or color balance filters. I have heavily used polarizing filters. When we changed to digital the UV filter I put on my digital camera caused an amber shift in color similar to an 81 series filter. Another photographer told me about this same amber color shift problem he had. I know now that camera filter manufacturers are now making clear filters for digital cameras. I would recommend this new clear filter. One problem with film was its sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation and this caused a slight shift to the blue. We do not have that problem with digital. Strong UV filters were used in aerial photography. In black-and-white film I would use a Wratten #8 yellow filter to filter out the UV. This gave me skies with good tone rather than a very light sky. One of my major uses for UV filters in the days of film were to create my own custom-made diffusion filters by smearing a very fine touch of Vaseline on a UV filter to create a soft focus lens. This is where less is better. Many photographers would use this technique on the edge of a wide angle lens which I did, but you can use this technique and even now in the digital age. For normal to short telephoto lenses like for portraiture this works great. However, the longer focal length lens you have the finer the smear must be or you will just get out of focus junk. On a normal focal length lens the smear should be hardly noticed. This softness spreads the highlights in your photo giving you a romantic dream effect. I would use it in black-and-white portraits too. Experiment. I could show anyone samples. I also made my own matt box for soft portraits. women look great photographed this way.
I’ve taken to getting the UV filter and then ordering one of those cheap screw-in metal hoods that I can screw into front threads of the UV filter, giving me a simple way to use both. Those hood also come with a pinch snap style cap that fits the end if the hood. Works well.
My experience matches yours. As a photojournalist, I always had a UV filter on my lenses as I was often put in rough conditions where dirt, dust, and other particulates would get on the front element and potentially scratch it. Like you, I would use the end of my t-shirt to clean it off and go back to work. The only problem I ever saw was lens flares when I had a bright light in the frame. I had to remember to take the UV filter off when shooting nighttime sports.
it's the sweat/oil from the t-shirt that cause additional flare. cheap SOFT toilet paper saves the day ( & night shots)
I only use them when the situation demands an extra degree of protection these days. I often shoot at night when I travel and ended up doing a lot of torture testing. Zeiss was best for me, but still flares in challenging lighting - you get a small purple dot (I have Zeiss lenses in my glasses and they do this too). B+W Master gives a larger blob in the same situations and Hoya Antistatic was more like traditional lens flare. You'll also see ghosting if you shoot at night with all the brands I tested.
For those who use the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2, you need to use a UV filter because many people who didn’t use a filter reported that the front element coating was damaged.
Hi Mark. Fantastic video as usual. I am one of those people who never uses a filter. Now you make me think twice about putting them on all my lenses.
I shot weddings for a few years which is a run-n-gun type of photography. Even then I did not use filters. Now that all I am doing is landscapes, I do not use them because I am using a Maven magnetic CPL filter for some of my images and I am not sure how to make the combo work. As it is my magnetic filter causes vignetting on my Tamorn 17-28 on the 17mm end. Adding more filters would probably make matters worse.
I only take out the filter when I'm getting an undesireable lens flare in my images.
That usually means only when I shoot the moon with my tele.
Thanks for the video and the testing.
I used to use UV filters, until one of my lenses took a fall and smashed the filter. The glass of the filter was what gouged the front element. I realized that it was not clear for any given impact if the filter would help or hurt. If I’m going to the beach or on the ocean, I’d likely put the filter back on. I agree that the image degradation from a decent filter is probably not an issue.
I had a case where i was shooting a handball match and some idiot touched the front of my lens. Luckily i had a (high quality) filter on. In handball players use resin to have better grip and extremely harsh cleaners are needed to get it off of anything. I had to throw away the filter as the coatings got damaged. But i was happy it wasn’t my front element.
There is a color cast, flaring, and clarity difference between cheap ND and variable ND filters and expensive ones, but many sub $100 variable ND filters are much better than some very expensive brands. I highly recommend K&F Nano-X line for just about anything as it straddles that fine line between amazing quality and amazing value. You may find yourself paying triple the price but not noticing a difference.
I've read plenty of forum posts on DPReview about this filter use. Many users go with don't use. As digital cameras have UV filter over sensor and front elements are tougher than the filters.
I do have a few varied size Heliopan UV filters for the purpose, but slacked off using. Reconsidering. Nikon DX and FX, city walk around use most often.
Same experience here. I almost always use a UV filter on my lens. The only time I don’t is when I’m going out specifically to take infrared photos because screwing the UV filter off, screwing the IR filter on and then back again is too much hassle. I once took a shot of a building through a grimy train window at an angle of about 20 degrees. I did see any degradation and neither can anyone else.
Nikon makes multi-coated neutral clear lens protector "filters" UV filters will change image quality outdoors, and not always in a bad way. They are good at removing haze, for example. But, the nikon neutral clear is a better option if we are just looking for protection.
I used various filters based on shooting situations, and always pre-prepared them during packing before heading out from home/office. example if its going to to be sandy, climbing or wet conditions, I will just pop on the necessary filter.
if there is flares or bright light, I will just switch to ND filter. this filter does protect lens from accidental damages. for a few times, my camera just blown off or knocked over by people. only the filter broke or scratches, but my lens still alright.
only for my fisheye lens, unfortunately I don't have a filter for that, that resulted in rough permanent scratches.
Hi Mark, I've heard all these reasons not to use a protective filter on my lens. But, I like you, had an incident where a very expensive lenses fell out of my backpack because I forgot to zipper it up. I did have a UV filter on the lens so that broke but the lens element was fine. Phews. Ever since then, I always use a protective filter. However, instead of UV filters, I opted for B+W Nano Coated Clear filters since I really don't need UV protection on a digital camera (since they handle that at the sensor level). UV filters were mainly important for film photography.
I always keep a UV filter on every lens. I used to do scuba diving and on one dive my expensive wide angle UW lens touched a sharp rock and badly scratched it. Ever since I buy a UV filter for any new lens. I have always argued I never heard anyone say 'Your image was ruined because you obviously had a UV filter fitted'. I often shoot landscapes in wet weather and wipe the filter when it gets wet. Also, no matter how careful you are when cleaning the front element, it will definitely degrade over time due to minute scratches. I also go one step further and keep an internal clip-in sensor protector so that I don't have to clean the sensor. So I completely agree with you. Thanks for the controlled test.
I have seen a ruined shot, it was a picture of the moon with multiple images due to reflections off the two extra surfaces.
My take as a hobbyist - a decent quality protective filter is a good investment to provide basic protection on the lenses.
Unlike professional photographers who have multiple backup lenses, insurance coverage, and loaner/ priority repair/ discounted repair programmes (Canon CPS; Fujifilm FPS; Nikon NPS etc.), most of us simply aren't in a position where we can just readily write off damages to the lenses that could have been prevented by a filter.
Also, if you've a lense that is out of production - e.g. if you muck around with vintage lenses like me, you can't even get the lenses repaired. It's not as trivial as "lets just replace the front element" like with modern lenses.
Sidenote: On the very expensive end of things (at least with Canon), some of the lenses are designed with a readily replaceable front element that's meant to be very cost effective to replace in case of damage. I know that most of their super-telephoto lenses (for sports and wildlife) do have this in place and it can be as cheap as $200~300 to replace the front element including service fees (on a lense that costs high-4 to 5 digits).
It doesn't need to be something on the price scale of B+W. Just make sure the filter is actually made from optical glass and has an AR multi-coat. There are plenty of these available for $15 to $30 a pop (depending on size).
If the filter costs $3 to $5 brand new, you might want to steer clear of it - odds are it's resin based, or doesn't have a multicoat, or could have a colour cast.
Personally, I use Hakuba XC-Pro & Marumi EXUS protective filters on my lenses and have not had any issues. They use optical glass (German Schott for both) and have nano coating (oil and water resistant coat for easy cleaning). Both also have an ultra thin frame which is more important for WA lenses. Very affordable stuff without the price tag of a B+W.
K&F Concept also does have good products but they don't seem to make any purely protective filters, only UV filters (though these are basically purely protective in the digital age).
A lens hood would also provide some additional protection and helps with flare though that could lend some artistic flair 😛in certain shots.
This is much needed info for me and likely for most if not all photographers. Thanks so much 🙌
Great topic choice. In years past, I always used a uv but since I became a RUclips viewer, I stopped using due to everyone’s pooh poohing their use. Just switched camera system to Nikon from Fuji and restarted using as Mapcamera here in Japan gives a free uv when you purchase a lens. Protect my investment. You raise a good question though… which makers are best??? That’s what I’d like to know. Also, I really don’t understand ND Filters (which stops to use and when)? Would like to understand this better. Not a fan of Amazon as I find them convenient but not less expensive. Also, too many low grade Chinese mfg’s on products that sell on price. What am I sacrificing? Coatings have to have an impact??? Right? Why else would the premier maker’s use them. Good episode! Thanks
I do nature and wildlife photography. Frequently at dirty and sandy environment. Got the RF 24-105 mm f4 L and the RF 100-500 mm f4.5-7.1 L with Canon R6 Mark II. On both lenses a Hoya UV and the orginal hoods. Made shots without the UV also but do not see a great difference. Mind that also replacing the lens cap can give scraps on a unplotected front glass.
Right! The issue of reducing image quality with quality filters is not accurate. Do we concern ourselves if a lens has one more element? Wouldn’t that element also degrade the images?
That extra lens element would likely be curved, whereas filters are flat. That's a big difference, especially with reflections.
I’ve used them in the past, don’t really bother anymore, unless I’m using a CPL, everyone’s different, some people have more accidents than others, for whatever reasons. And yes it could happen to anyone at anytime, I own quite a few relatively expensive lenses and I’ve luckily never had any issues, I don’t worry about it anymore, it’s all insured and I do take care of my equipment.
I never used UV filters,. Instead, I use lens caps and then drive myself crazy by setting them down, throwing in the camera bag etc, only concerned with the image. I've probably spent as much as 15 minutes retying to locate later. I did just purchase a Maven filter kit which comes with a magnetic UV - splash guard filter. I won't hesitate to use it. Your video is excellent and raises my opinion on using UV filters substantially.
Filters do affect optical performance if they are not true optical flats AND used on telephotos. Years ago I found this out the hard way with a Hoya on a 300mm f/4. The filter introduced a lot of astigmatism which has the effect of smearing fine detail. Initially I had thought the lens was a dud because I had bought it used, but everything was great after I ditched the filter. I would run the tests again using a telephoto lens and also check corner performance. And BTW, avoid cleaning any optical surface with your T-shirt. You're slowing sandpapering your lens with microscopic grit. If your lens has been collecting dust from a desert hike, imagine what you t-shirt is collecting?
I have MC filters on all my lenses. In my slide film days , I had 81A on some lenses & they were never off
unless I had to use filters for B&W. I still have a couple of old brass B+W filters & brass does not stick to aluminum (as they are not brothers/cousins; ref: Feynman lectures). I always use a hood; if a lens does not come w/ one I'd always search for an appropriate one. To shoot in a blizzard or heavy rain, I'd get
a plastic (shopping/garbage) bag w/ holes cut in the right places for lens & vf & rubber band to hold the plastic over a good hood ( a deep one for 70-200 is excellent ). A film winder/motor drive is essential to reduce a lot of hassles. That was my film days : filter, hood, bag, rubber band & motor drive & a place to hide for changing films. Haven't done that w/ digital which is simpler w/o film loading+shelter in the elements. I, now being decades older, will brave those conditions again w/ digital & transparent bags.
P.S. So often I see a lot of people shooting w/ the hood mounted in the reverse & in cases prob. partially blocking the zoom ring. They have to think & learn sth. by themselves.
Thanks for this great video, I was asking myself this UV filter question for a long time. Now it's finally over😊
Having a nice quality MCUV filter was a must even 20 years ago. That was the RULE no. 1! Even professionals doing fashion shows, they all used protective filter as well.
in 2005, I was spending a lot of money on B+W MCUV filters for my Minolta G lenses. I just believed in the top quality of B+W or german brands.
Now almost 2 decade passed, and I realized there were a very big leap on Optical technology and it's becoming really difficult to tell the top notch brands doing the far superior job against cheaper brands in terms of image quality. (That means, even cheaper brands have equivalent technological advancement too).
So, last year when I started up my photography hobby again, I tried K&F filters (NANO-X) series on my Sony GM II lenses.
Only reason why I have chosen K&F was.. they were using Asahi Glass Co's element. Asahi class is one of the world's top Glass makers for Automobile, medical, and other industry.
I had a relative who used to work at Asahi glass co for 30 years before in Japan.
Now, I have no issue with this K&F Nano-X filter on my 77 and 82 mm GM II lenses.
Just today, I ordered 2 filters from Kase in China for Anti-laser protection. Anti-Laser protection filters are not cheap. 100 bucks a pop but hope it will save my CMOS from Laser when I go for event shooting.
Many years ago in a popular magazine filters were tested due to the question of affecting the image quality. The results were a mixed bag. The bottom line was a resounding YES. the thickness of s filter displaces focussing due to diffraction. it was not seen in DSLRs as focussing is done through the lens but rangefinders (Leica was used) did show a change in accuracy. Further when the lines per mm were tested some filters were much better than others.
The brand of filter made a major difference but the best reduced the resolution by about 15%, the worst by a wopping 40%.
At the time even fine grain film was often outperformed by lenses and the loss was not seen in any results but microfilm did!
Protection is a goodthing even today as lenses pretty much outperform most digital imagers.
More of an effect is edge sharpness as on wide lenses the images passes through a larger thickness of the filter.
Cine and Video is of such low image quality that filter use far outweighs the risks. As well, in cine there is a clear filter of the same brand as any effect filter later to be used to avoid any focus shift. Often effect filters filters make focussing difficult so the focus puller is often assigned to switch filters.
In practicality, a UV filter is there only for protection as lenses with 4 or more elements do not pass any UV at all even non coated optics. I never use a UV filter as work in a studio is fairly safe. Outside I always do as I find myself taking pictures with the camera on my eyes. No mirrorless!
Color shifts are of no concern on auto white balance. If there is a difference, blame the white balance circuitry of thecamera. On manual, it may have a bitof effect like you said.
My money is on using a thin brand name filter and a lenshood. Inexpensive insurance! Finally, polarizers cause vignetting! The wider the lens the more you see it.
Rinus
I’ve used uv filters for over 30 years a mix of brands, Hoya, B & W, K & F and I’ve never had an issue it’s a lot cheaper to replace a filter than a main camera lens but invest in a descent filter there is no impact on image quality it’s a myth. You don’t hear landscape photographers who use filters all the time saying oooo no I can’t use them it degrades the image 🤔 So protect your lens with a UV filter it far cheaper than damaging your lenses and keep your lenses pristine and better trade in prices on your gear too.
The only case where I saw a strong degradation on image quality was when I tried a cheap UV filter on a Sigma 150-600 Sports. The sports version uses 105mm filters, which are very expensive. The decision to save some money literally ended up in a cheap filter with cheap performance.
For almost 3 months I wasn't satisfied with the image quality, frequently having problems with sharpness and focus hunting. Things were just not ok with that lens. One day, I decided to remove the filter and voilá, the lens was in fact very good and sharp.
Except for that case, all my lenses have UV/clear filters in front of it.
Filters can also help a lot when you are shooting on dirty/windy/rainy places. If the filter gets dirty you can quicly replace it with a clear one, not even worrying of cleaning (and potentially scratching) it in the field.
My fujifilm uv filter is by far the best at controlling lens flare out of any filter i've used. It's no wonder its so expensive.
Thank you for this test! Honestly I have always been on the "the hood is enough" side, mainly because having multiple sizes to deal with is kind of a pain, but I'm going to get some to use at least in more risky situations.
In any case for wide angle lenses getting a filter is generally a piece of cake, even the worst filter you can find won't degrade image sharpness too much. But when you are dealing with long lenses it gets harder: wide angle lenses have high diopter, so it means that if the filter has imperfections (that you can see as spotty diopters over the glass) the high diopter of the lens will outpower the imperfections. The longer the lens the lower its diopter is, so imperfections on the filter will be felt a lot more. As an example I have a VERY cheap polarizer, I used it quite a bit on my Zeiss 18 mm, with perfect results. One day I tried it on a 200 mm lens, even just turning the filter you could see the image moving in a wonky way
I tested my recommended filter at 600mm and couldn't pick the difference, but it was only a few test shots. A few people have shared the same information about the longer focal lengths, so I will do some more detailed testing.
@@markwiemels Probably they are all quite good then, my filter was if I remember correctly a 5€ polarizer, that is made with two glasses with a more involved construcion and glass type, probably a simple transparent filter doesn't need to lower its quality that much to be able to be sold for cheap. But in any case if there's a difference in sharpness you'll see more clearly with longer lenses, and reflection performance with wide angle lenses