Bad news, my filters suck

[pierrot]

Surprising as a simple UV filter can ruin all efforts made by lenses designers...

Among other pieces of glass, I have a "generic" 100-400mm (Soligor branded, but could be labelled as anything else as it is manufactured by Cosina) that I always considered as very poor, or at least as "under average". It produces soft, low-contrast images and its autofocus chases a lot, too, especially in low light which is not surprising but also at the upper tele zoom factors. :(

I've read here and there on this forum and others that low end filters without MC must be banned from a decent photographer's equipment. But I never noticed any loss of quality because of the UV filters that I put onto all my lenses since photography was invented (or at least, since I bought my first film camera and lenses some 30 years back).
And branded, "high-end" multicoated filters are priced soooo high (a pure scandal, in my opinion) that I'd never even dream of buying one: sounds insane to spend 10 or 20% of a lens' price for a stupid simple glass blade. :rolleyes:

But yesterday I found that my poor 100-400 was equipped with one of the cheap UV filters (a Vivitar without any specific marking, and obviously not multicoated at all as I can see in examining it in reflective light). So I decided to remove it and give it a try this way.

Guess what? It produced nicer pics, much more contrasted, nicely saturated, without this awful hazy effect, and even with less chromatic aberration. And AF chases less, too. ;)

So what? Shall I have to spend the price of a nice near-L additional lens (I'd love to get this Canon 100--400 in place of my crappy Soligor-Cosina) in buying new decent UV filters for my whole collection of glass?

Or should I give up with UV filters since all modern lenses are UV proof, and rely on hoods to protect my cherished tools?

[lomond]

Never put a cheap UV filter on your lens, it will degrade the image and you will be more susceptible to flare.
Any glass in front of your lens must degrade the image to a certain extent, however with a good quality filter it is hardly noticeable.
I use Hoya HMC Pro 1 and have no complaints.

Here's link to some more info ;
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/B+W-UV-Filter.aspx

[SkipD]

Pierrot, in my opinion it is supremely silly to spend a lot of money on filters to "protect" a lens. A good quality lens hood does far more for physical protection in addition to knocking out some stray light that might cause flare, etc.

You will hear the argument for and against filters and hoods time and time again, but my opinion is based on more than 40 years as a photographer. I have never once used a filter merely for protection, but a hood saved a lens (and the body) when I dropped a Nikon F camera onto a sidewalk back in 1968. The lens and body (with a new hood) are fine today and never needed repairs. That said, I might consider a buying a good UV filter for lens protection if I intended to go take pictures in a sandstorm or a hurricane.

[dhbailey]

To protect your camera (or ANY expensive piece of equipment), rule No. 1 is: DON'T DROP IT!

For my money, only use filters if you want the effect they will give to your photograph, such as circular polarizers or neutral-density. Don't put a piece of glass in front of your lens if it will not have any noticeable effect on your photos.

Hoods will offer some protection, especially against walking into things while the camera is hanging around your neck, but the only way to guarantee no damage from dropping your camera is to not drop your camera.

But certainly degrading your photos in the interest of supposedly protecting your lenses seems counterproductive to my way of thinking.

lomond -- have you taken the same photo, with the same settings, camera mounted on a tripod, both with and without the filter and can you really say that both pictures are the same?

[lomond]

lomond -- have you taken the same photo, with the same settings, camera mounted on a tripod, both with and without the filter and can you really say that both pictures are the same?

Hi David,

At no point did I say the "both pictures are the same". I did say "Any glass in front of your lens must degrade the image to a certain extent" and "hardly noticeable" and I stand by that.

I long ago gave up the business of scrutinizing the picture down to the pixel level for sharpness etc.
If it looks good, it probably is good.

I do use a hood alongside a UV filter for two reasons protection and flare.
When I buy a lens it is a big investment for me and I take a great deal of care to protect any lens I buy.

P.S. Considering the 300 F4 IS at the minute. :) :) :)

[cactusclay]

Here we go again.

[lomond]

Here we go again.

Should we ignore Pierrots question because it happens to be the perennial filter/hood protection argument ? :confused:

[RJSorensen]

I like and use hoods . . . but it is a valid question that helps many as they understand which answer is "right" this time.