To UV or not to UV...


reveru

New Member
Nov 20, 2012
3
0
0
East
#1
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...
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#2
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.
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#3
Rashkae said:
....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?
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#4
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)
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,543
33
48
Pasir Ris
#5
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?
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#6
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...)
 

agws1970

New Member
Sep 9, 2002
365
0
0
47
North East Singapore
Visit site
#7
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.
 

evilorgi

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2007
1,585
0
36
Tampines
www.facebook.com
#8
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...
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#9
evilorgi said:
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.
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,353
8
38
sing
#10
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:

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,543
33
48
Pasir Ris
#11
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.
 

stuck

New Member
Mar 12, 2010
728
2
0
#12
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!
 

Turbonetics

Senior Member
Feb 19, 2009
2,704
8
38
#13
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.
 

Jan 12, 2010
1,796
0
0
#14
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...
 

Mar 1, 2012
1,585
6
0
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#15
+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)
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,543
33
48
Pasir Ris
#16
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/newbies-corner/803029-newbie-guide-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.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#17
+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
 

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#18
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. :bsmilie:
 

Turbonetics

Senior Member
Feb 19, 2009
2,704
8
38
#19
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.
 

sin77

New Member
Nov 28, 2004
1,865
3
0
#20
Cheap lens don't need to use UV filters lah. Say so many times liao
 

Top Bottom