Oops... Have been using junk filters on my lenses...


Aug 16, 2010
192
0
0
Singapore City, Singapore
#1
Tested my filters by following the method outlined in
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VRbW?start=10
(search for Tom Mann)

I have four filters: 1 Kenko Pro1D, 2 Vitacon, 1 Non-branded, which came as a free gift when I bought my Tamron 17-50 online. Only the Kenko filter passed the test (i.e. had minimal effect on the flare). All the other three turned to be junk, which, btw, means that they resulted in crazy flares as compared to when the filters were off.

Posting this here just in case some CSers had the same doubts as I did. Cheap filters basically ruin your money spent on expensive lenses... Or is that an exaggeration? Please enlighten me in case I am wrong.
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#6
Thanks for your suggestion... I am too careless to enjoy shooting w/o filters...
Does your front element protrude a lot??

Use a hood to protect if you want protection, it's much better than a filter.
 

henry soh

New Member
Aug 29, 2008
851
0
0
#7
I don't use filter after daylight. It is a UV filter that cut off a stop of light, a waste.
 

Yoricko

Senior Member
May 25, 2008
1,118
0
36
Singapore
#8
Hi,

Even with a B+W Super Nano-crystal-diamond-flourescent-nautral-shin-coating* filter, it will still slightly affect your pictures.

It doesn't really 'degrade' your picture, but only makes your lens prone to more flare (all sorts).
For best image quality, you'll have to go commando. Usually with coated and multi-coated filters, there is no visible difference unless you are shooting under adverse conditions (like shooting against the sun to deliberately get your lens to flare, still very mild).

I'd still rather have a filter on my lens all the time even if it is just some no-brand-dollar filter made from plastic; I never put on my lens cap (or even bring with me) unless I don't plan to use the camera for a prolonged period of time, so I can just replace my filters if it gets dirty or damaged.

If you were to go filter-less, I'd recommend getting a small hood somewhere to prevent physical contact with the front element.

Regards,
 

Last edited:

nonacyons

New Member
Feb 17, 2010
125
0
0
#9
I go filterless. UV filters serves no purpose through my years of using them. Infact they are more of a nuisance creating flares which damage a nice image.

For protection, a hood will still be the best bet.
 

Last edited:

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#11
I don't use filter after daylight. It is a UV filter that cut off a stop of light, a waste.
Ah uncle. I think you're referring to CPL filters, which result in approx. 2 stops light loss.

UV filters do not result in any noticeable light loss.

I notice that a lot of your posts tend to be way off target... Maybe read up a bit more before posting?
 

ghoonk

New Member
Jul 30, 2007
430
0
0
Dubai, UAE
500px.com
#12
Watch out for Matin filters as well. Bought my first DSLR in years back in Nov 10 (a D3100) and got a 35/1.8G with Matin filter. Flare and ghosting appeared in a number of pics where I had a light source (e.g. lamppost) ahead, and I thought it was normal. Picked up a Sigma filter and the flare was gone.

Lesson for me was not to cheap out too much on filters :p

That said, as long as I don't end up with flare/ghosting, it's good enough :D
 

Top Bottom