Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: To UV or not to UV...

  1. #1

    Default To UV or not to UV...

    Hi guys. I have been reading up on other people's discussion on UV filters. And the consensus is generally that the camp is divided into half about its usefulness. I decided to take a simple shoot in bright sunlight to test, but having done that, I am not sure how to draw a conclusion. So I'm posting the photos up for a discussion, maybe the experienced people can shed some light on this?


    With UV filter



    Without UV filter





    Both shots were taken within 30 seconds of each other.
    F8.0, 1/160, ISO100.
    Vitacon Super Pro UV Digital filter.


    *NOTE: I think photobucket post-processed my uploaded photos and shifted their colour from their original. So I am not sure if you guys can help to draw any conclusions from the above pictures...

  2. #2

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    1. Vitacon sux. There's a good reason it ends in "con".
    2. On modern DSLRs, UV filters serve no other purpose than to act as lens protection. It's not like the days of Film, which did not have their own UV filter. A digital sensor has a UV and a IR filter in front of the sensor itself already.
    3. The camp is NOT "divided in half about it's usefulness" but do note that ANY filter you attach to your lens, especially the cheap "used to con newbies" filters like Vitacon, can greatly increase your chances of flare and ghosting.
    Alpha

  3. #3
    Member Fudgecakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae
    ....can greatly increase your chances of flare and ghosting.
    Yup you can actually see that in your picture. The one with the filter. Notice the loss in contrast on the building?
    There are no bad photographers, only photos that could've been done better
    My Flickr

  4. #4

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    Quote Originally Posted by reveru View Post
    Hi guys. I have been reading up on other people's discussion on UV filters. And the consensus is generally that the camp is divided into half about its usefulness. I decided to take a simple shoot in bright sunlight to test, but having done that, I am not sure how to draw a conclusion. So I'm posting the photos up for a discussion, maybe the experienced people can shed some light on this?

    Both shots were taken within 30 seconds of each other.
    F8.0, 1/160, ISO100.
    Vitacon Super Pro UV Digital filter.


    *NOTE: I think photobucket post-processed my uploaded photos and shifted their colour from their original. So I am not sure if you guys can help to draw any conclusions from the above pictures...
    1) Vitacon is a horrible example of a UV filter, it's extremely low quality and shouldn't be used to compare shots with and without a UV filter.
    2) No, the camp is not split into half. A UV filter serves no purpose other than physical protection when used with a digital camera.
    3) The best image is always the one without a UV filter. (There's no split camp on this as well)

  5. #5
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,392

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    You show a nice example for a cheap crappy filter and its impact on the image. It didn't need a sophisticated setup or any expensive equipment but yet the result is so obvious. Thanks for that
    Now: where is the split here when we look at the results? Who would accept the pic taken with that crappy thingy if the image can look so much in the 2nd pic?
    EOS

  6. #6

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    You show a nice example for a cheap crappy filter and its impact on the image. It didn't need a sophisticated setup or any expensive equipment but yet the result is so obvious. Thanks for that
    Now: where is the split here when we look at the results? Who would accept the pic taken with that crappy thingy if the image can look so much in the 2nd pic?
    I think he just said "split camp" without actually knowing if there's a split or not because he thought it would lead to a discussion (though it's been discussed on here... 20? 30? times already...)
    Alpha

  7. #7
    Member agws1970's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North East Singapore
    Posts
    365

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    I think he just said "split camp" without actually knowing if there's a split or not because he thought it would lead to a discussion (though it's been discussed on here... 20? 30? times already...)
    C'mon Rashkae, newbie trying to be helpful. Not like he is extolling the "virtues" of the Bite a Con filter. Chill bro.

  8. #8

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    this is the reason why some people are willing to spend on a more expensive filters such as Hoya HD or B+W XS-Pro. there is no point putting a piece of lousy glass infront of your expensive lens...

  9. #9
    Member Fudgecakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evilorgi
    this is the reason why some people are willing to spend on a more expensive filters such as Hoya HD or B+W XS-Pro. there is no point putting a piece of lousy glass infront of your expensive lens...
    This is the same logic as buying an expensive HDTV but only buying a cheapo akira VCD player to watch your movies on.
    There are no bad photographers, only photos that could've been done better
    My Flickr

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    If you lens is costly, then it is a good idea to protect the front element from accidental scratches.
    Sometimes it is not just the cost. The precious lens may be discontinued from new production.

    High quality filters:
    Heliopan
    Leica
    B+W Schott glass Nano coated
    Zeiss

    For those who insist on not putting filters in front of their costly lenses, saying that it will degrade the image, ......please carry on.
    I have met individuals like these. Their implied message is that they are so rich that they can easily afford to buy another brand new lens if their current one got scratched. So it is a latent boast. Let it be.
    Last edited by ricohflex; 17th January 2013 at 10:23 PM.

  11. #11
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,392

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    Quote Originally Posted by ricohflex View Post
    For those who insist on not putting filters in front of their costly lenses, saying that it will degrade the image, ......please carry on.
    I have met individuals like these. Their implied message is that they are so rich that they can easily afford to buy another brand new lens if their current one got scratched. So it is a latent boast. Let it be.
    Maybe it applies to those you met. Other people just use lens hoods instead or are just careful enough.
    EOS

  12. #12

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Maybe it applies to those you met. Other people just use lens hoods instead or are just careful enough.
    I'll second that. Maybe because I don't buy lenses that cost thousands of dollars, but having to buy a high-end UV filter (so it won't degrade the IQ of your expensive lens) that cost of couple of hundred bucks just to protect the front element just don't make sense to me. Because if I treat my gear so roughly that leads to me shattering that expensive (to me at least) "protection filter", I will be devastated instead of counting my lucky stars. Maybe it's different for professionals who sometimes have to take bigger risks with their equipment, but for enthusiasts like myself it makes far more sense to just use hoods and try your best not to drop your equipment or bang into sharp pointy objects lens first!

    Maybe this is what the TS referred to as the "split in the camp". haha cheers!

  13. #13

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    i have tried to compare B+W filter and without.
    with filter it loses slightly in overall performance.
    that's why i prefer to shoot without filter.
    and if i must have filter,it has to be good ones.

  14. #14

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    i shoot "naked" no filter at all except Lee GND's or ND's for landscapes...for circular filters sometimes i used CPL if condition is really bad like foggy or mid-day shooting...

  15. #15

    Default

    +1 for lens hood. Then again, my lenses aren't expensive enough to justify expensive filters...

    Maybe the seniors can suggest a guideline for filter cost. Like maybe the filter shouldn't cost more than 10% of ur lens cost etc... if the filter cost more than that, it might b more worth it to get hoods instead (as well as taking note of the way you handle your gear)
    hi

  16. #16
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,392

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    Quote Originally Posted by silvermoon1407 View Post
    Maybe the seniors can suggest a guideline for filter cost. Like maybe the filter shouldn't cost more than 10% of ur lens cost etc... if the filter cost more than that, it might b more worth it to get hoods instead (as well as taking note of the way you handle your gear)
    http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/newbi...e-filters.html
    I don't see the point of relating filter price to lens price. I use a lens hood, regardless whether $150 kit lens or $800 Wide Angle. I use lens hoods because I see the benefits, I experienced the benefits and I see the potential and real disadvantages of UV or protective filters.
    EOS

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silvermoon1407 View Post
    +1 for lens hood. Then again, my lenses aren't expensive enough to justify expensive filters...

    Maybe the seniors can suggest a guideline for filter cost. Like maybe the filter shouldn't cost more than 10% of ur lens cost etc... if the filter cost more than that, it might b more worth it to get hoods instead (as well as taking note of the way you handle your gear)
    Hood and filter have different purposes. I always use the lens hood
    Alpha

  18. #18

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    The UV filter simply serve as an protection glass for your front element.
    If you think you need it. Then just buy the best you can afford - so as to prevent more problem such as many have mentioned
    If you are afraid of IQ loss or etc etc problems. Then just dont use it. And be more careful (not that with UV u can be less careful tho)

    In any case. a lens hood would be more handy though. IMO.
    For me. I use both. If TS need to know.

  19. #19

    Default Re: To UV or not to UV...

    to those who think that cheap lens don't justify pricey filter,then i think you are the ones who use filter as a "guard" to protect your lens and not for its true purpose/effect.
    personally i feel that as long as filter is used,the image will be affected but how much it is being affected usually depend on the quality of filters used.
    so if u still think cheap lens don't justify pricey filter,then i say cheap lens better don't use filter.
    or should i say cheap lens should use a better filter to prevent further "damage" to the image quality.

  20. #20

    Default

    Cheap lens don't need to use UV filters lah. Say so many times liao
    D7100,SB910,17-50/2.8OS,105/2.8VR,85/1.8D,2xE-M1,O60/2.8,12-40/2.8,35-100/2.8,14-42,LX100

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •