Get rid of that UV filter...

[Curtis N]

... or this is what could happen.

I was experimenting with candlelight and my 50mm f/1.4. I could actually see those extra spots in the viewfinder!

I few months back I posted an image of "phantom candle flames" in a theatre shot I took. Some suggested it could be caused by the UV filter. Turns out, they were right!

[lost]

What brand and model is the filter?

[Curtis N]

Canon UV Haze filter 58mm
That's all it says on the box.

[m3elmo]

that is interesting, i wonder how it reacts in sunlight?

[AjP]

I use B+W UV and never had any problems, so far, need to test in similar situation so

[Carzee]

The "extra candles" in the bad pic are a reflection off the front lens element onto the inside of the UV. So there's nil or a real bad coating on the UV?

[lmelendez]

That's very interesting indeed...
However, I think I'll keep the UV filter on just to protect the lens....
(plus I haven't seen any of those reflections in my pictures...)


Leo.

[Tom W]

Uncoated or poorly-coated filters will exhibit this "ghosting" and will flare quite badly as well. Multicoated filters generally control reflections much better and usually have little or no visible effect on the image.

[ericgtr]

I have read about this issue a few times so to be safe I just take it off anytime I suspect there will be any glare.

[d'homme]

Never had that problem with any of mine. Plus they protect my lens.

[Hellashot]

UV filters basically are not needed indoors. You should have taken it off. :)

[annayu]

Looks convincing but I don't dare to take off the filters. When I look closely there are already some small scratches on the surfaces which just have well could have been on the lens front element if the filter wasn't there. And I treat my lenses rather carefully.
Never saw this problem myself.
-Anna

[swamprot]

I don't know for sure but a UV is just one added variable that can be easily eliminated. I leave mine on to protect my lens especially when I am shooting outdoors. In the studio I remove it. I have heard it said that it is nuts to put a cheap piece of glass in front of an expensive high quality lens.. Especially an L.. Could be wrong but I seriously think my studio shots have improved since I went with this. They most probably make UV's that are up to my L but I don't think I have one.. And I'm not going shopping.

[grego]

Would you be daring to do that on a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS though? :p

But its hard to really say how accurate this is without another brand filter to be honest.

[Sathi]

I noticed when I took my UV filter off flare is much better controlled, so I stopped using it. Maybe I would feel differently though if I was using a $2000 lens instead of a $300 tamron. But then again if I had $2000 to spend on a lens I might not be that worried about it.

[S230]

Thanks for sharing this info Curtis. This was a question that was debated on a previous thread if the filter was any good. This proves two point. The filter even for myself is to protect the net. Personally if I were to take high quality photos in a stable environment (ie. indoors), then I would take the filter off. It's risky when working with an expensive lens because there is always a risk of scratching.

[Curtis N]

I have heard it said that it is nuts to put a cheap piece of glass in front of an expensive high quality lens.. Last night, while using my table saw, I put a $2 pair of safety glasses in front of the two lenses God gave me. Most people use UV filters for a similar reason. A cheap piece of glass to protect a REALLY EXPENSIVE piece of glass.

Safety glasses sometimes affect my vision. UV filters can do the same. It's a matter of risk tolerance vs. potential image quality problems. There is no single right answer.

[Tom W]

Last night, while using my table saw, I put a $2 pair of safety glasses in front of the two lenses God gave me. Most people use UV filters for a similar reason. A cheap piece of glass to protect a REALLY EXPENSIVE piece of glass.

Safety glasses sometimes affect my vision. UV filters can do the same. It's a matter of risk tolerance vs. potential image quality problems. There is no single right answer.

There's two kinds of people in this world - those who use UV filters for protection and those who don't. :D

Actually, there's 3 or 4. Maybe more. I use the hood for it's protection against flare and such, but it also provides protection for my lenses most of the time. I don't use UV filters normally, unless I'm taking the lens into a dirty environment. My default is no filter, with exceptions when I feel it necessary.

Others default to have the filter on unless they see it as necessary to not have it.

Whichever way, its just good to be aware that a filter, especially a poorly coated one, will add a flat, reflective glass surface in front of your lens that can cause ghosting and lens flare well beyond what the lens might exhibit on its own.

Use a multicoated UV filter if you use one at all. Hoya's HMC and SHMC filters and B&W filters are two examples.

[Jon, The Elder]

Most of my shooting is for horse events, which means I am in a dusty,dirty, crowded and somewhat unpredictable situation much of the time. Now, $4000.00 worth of gear (hand held) deserves all the protection (however slight) that it can have.

UV filters protect against stones and other debris kicked up. Lens hoods (aside from their intended use) do the same.

Common sense demands their use! I'll let the technical guys argue the other merits.

[PhotosGuy]

My filters come & go, but my 40 year old Nikkors still look as good as the day I bought them. I'll take the filter off in a critical studio environment, but almost never when outside. I like the option of a quick swipe with the end of a t-shirt if I'm in a hurry & don't mind replacing the filter every 5 years or so.

[Jon, The Elder]

Frank - you're leaving yourself wide open for flamers!!!

Heck - even I was tempted...........

[formula4speed]

I don't have the images online, but I had the same thing happen when shooting the moon with a Canon UV filter. I took it off, took the shot, then put it back on.

[PhotosGuy]

Frank - you're leaving yourself wide open for flamers!!!
Heck - even I was tempted........... You mean I shouldn't use my t-shirt to clean a filter? :D:D

[KennyG]

I shoot in one of the worst environments - motorsport, with dust from gravel traps, oil and general flying debris. In my 27 years of doing this there has been nothing that a UV filter would have protected and no scratches on the front glass of any of my lenses. I do however always use a hood, even with my 50mm, as it reduces flare (even indoors) and gives real protection without the downsides.

Even the best quality filters can cause reflections, trust me I have tried it. The choice is - do you want the best picture from your $2,000 lens or spend $200 for a top quality filter and end up with ghost reflections. Oh, and most filters are more easily scratched than lens front elements which are harder, tougher, with better coatings (on L lenses anyway).

Unfortunately filter use is an argument that can't be won by either side. My stance is I am paid for quality pictures, not how pretty my photo gear is.

[2goldens]

I had the same problem with a photograph but never thought of the filter. I will have to check into this. Great post.

[guitarman]

I use a UV filter on my 17-40mm L lens. I haven't noticed any proplems but it made me think of something I read somewhere. I've heard in different reviews that the extra piece of glass in the 70-200mm IS lens degrades the quality of the picture a bit giving the non IS version the edge in sharpness. Now if this is true what would a UV filter do. I don't know. but in a couple of weeks when I pick up my 24-70mm L and 70-200mm L I have to decide wether I wil use my UV with them. (I was thinking of just sharing the one I got with my 17-40mm L, its a B&W) I will be picking up a good quality Circular Polarizer. Is that good enough to use for the outdoor shots or will I not always want to have that on outdoors?

[SR071]

Funny this has come up...yesterday I was at the camera shop without a wallet (safer that way) just after a bit of product knowledge.

I asked how much it would be to replace the front glass on a 70-200L - sending it to Canon for repair etc.

It came out to be roughly 15% of the purchase price of the lens.

Then I asked about the absolute best filter I could wack on it...about 12% of the purchase price of the lens, and it was very fragile and wafer thin.

I'll stick with the hood methinks. :) Poorer for it, but only just! :)

[kenyc]

Well, check this out:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86465

That's a reason to use a filter :)

KAC

[ohenry]

Well, check this out:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86465

That's a reason to use a filter :)

KAC

nah...that's a reason to use a nikon :)

[PhotosGuy]

nah...that's a reason to use a nikon :D I resemble that! ;)
Very nice shots in that thread, Ken!

[Sean-Mcr]

Interesting

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

[PetKal]

I had my suspicions about the Canon UV filter although I have never done any real tests with it.
Now I think I have done well in dedicating it to lens protection when shooting candids inside a sand-blasting or a paint-spray booth.

[blue_max]

If I have a filter on, I can take it off. If you don't have one, you can't put one on.

If I see a problem, I will never use them. For my shooting, it doesn't make any difference.

I will go where you would never dare without a filter. Is that good enough reason to have one on?

Graham

[Cassie]

Interesting

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

After reading this article, I'll take mine off, and just carry it with me to use if needed, I see this in more of my pictures than I want to:confused:

[XB70]

When I bought my 80mm F/1.8 to use with a Canon 300D, I also bought (on the salesman's recommendation) a UV filter to protect the lens 'from new'.

A few days later, in Austria, I noticed the same sort of images on indoor shots (quite dark with small lights) and after trying a few things, realised that it was the filter (only paid 10 pounds for the filter) and now it is more of a protective element - to get a decent filter would cost the same as the lens so I try and just be careful but glad to know that I am not alone in experiencing this

[SkipD]

When I bought my 80mm F/1.8 to use with a Canon 300D, I also bought (on the salesman's recommendation) a UV filter to protect the lens 'from new'.Salesmen make a handsome profit selling filters that are not really needed. They would do the buyer a lot more justice selling good lens hoods instead.

[MDJAK]

That was a great article by Mike Johnson.

I've always purchased UV filters for all my lenses, figuring I was going the extra mile in protecting them. Even though I treat my equipment like a newborn baby.

This past summer, I was on top of Haleakala, a 10,000 foot dormant volcano on Maui at 4:30 a.m. to shoot the sunrise and them mountain bike down.

Almost all of my shots were lousy because of ghosting due to the filterS. That's right, somehow or other, I had two UV filters screwed onto the end of the lens.

I'll never use a filter again. Unless I'm in the Sahara dessert in a sand storm. And even then maybe not.

[Luckie8]

That was a great article by Mike Johnson.

I've always purchased UV filters for all my lenses, figuring I was going the extra mile in protecting them. Even though I treat my equipment like a newborn baby.

This past summer, I was on top of Haleakala, a 10,000 foot dormant volcano on Maui at 4:30 a.m. to shoot the sunrise and them mountain bike down.

Almost all of my shots were lousy because of ghosting due to the filterS. That's right, somehow or other, I had two UV filters screwed onto the end of the lens.

I'll never use a filter again. Unless I'm in the Sahara dessert in a sand storm. And even then maybe not.
What brand of UV filters did you use?

[soupdragon]

I have always felt filters are largely superfluous, my heart goes out to the Canon optical engineer who beats his brow morning, noon and night to try and get all those little photons to travel in the right direction, only to have his efforts thwarted by people fitting scatterers in the light path.

[Curtis N]

... only to have his efforts thwarted by people fitting scatterers in the light path.Mostly his efforts are thwarted by the Canon dealers who try to convince their customers they need one for every lens, just to make a few extra bucks.

[soupdragon]

Mostly his efforts are thwarted by the Canon dealers who try to convince their customers they need one for every lens, just to make a few extra bucks.

Well said that man, perhaps you will be saving forum members some money here too.

[chrischo]

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=308822

[blue_max]

In the example, how can one be sure it isn't a reflection from something else in the room?

Nothing to do with the filter at all.

And the quality of the lens in itself must come into the equasion. I good lens will deal with any stray light caused by a filter surely.

Graham

[soupdragon]

You are right of course, my case is based on my own personal experience in my film days (when you needed filters)

[peacock]

This subject still troubles me ,

To filter or not to filter that is the question , weather tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of possible reflections or to take arms against damaging the lens , and by filtering oppose it.

[Curtis N]

In the example, how can one be sure it isn't a reflection from something else in the room?You lost me. To which example were you referring? My original post, or something else?

[blue_max]

You lost me. To which example were you referring? My original post, or something else?


Curtis, I do owe you an apology - I waded in without reading the post properly. I have amended my post to some extent. I am keen to try to recreate the effect myself. Can you tell me, was it a very long exposure?

It does seem that this particular scenario is the one that catches the filter out though (bright light source in dimly lit scene).

Graham

[Curtis N]

Can you tell me, was it a very long exposure?It was several months ago and I don't even know if I saved the original file with EXIF data, but my failing memory recollects something around 2 seconds. I was experimenting, trying to do a portrait of my wife in the candlelight, when I noticed the "phantom flames" in my viewfinder. But I first noticed this phenomenon with a 1/15 second exposure. See this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78491).

This type of flare most often shows up in dimly lit scenes with bright light sources. In more evenly-lit scenes, I assume that the same thing is happening but it's just not noticable. If the filter is always bouncing the light around in the same manner, the effect might be manifested simply as a slight reduction in contrast.

[I Simonius]

... or this is what could happen.

I was experimenting with candlelight and my 50mm f/1.4. I could actually see those extra spots in the viewfinder!

I few months back I posted an image of "phantom candle flames" in a theatre shot I took. Some suggested it could be caused by the UV filter. Turns out, they were right!

GULP!

so its reflections or gritty lens?

what a choice!:D :D :D

[Tom W]

GULP!

so its reflections or gritty lens?

what a choice!:D :D :D

No - it's reflections or gritty lenses, or good multicoated filters.

[ChrisLTD]

From http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

Here's the news flash, though, although it's not exactly news, since it's been true for a good long while now: good modern lenses have very hard glass objectives, and/or scratch-resistant coatings. They make it difficult to scratch or mar a lens. With reasonable care, and perhaps a decent lens hood for physical protection if the objective is not recessed, there is almost no chance you will scratch the objective of your lens. Empirically, this is confirmed when you survey used lenses for sale. How many do you find that are scratched? How many eBay auctions for lenses don't say "glass mint" or "glass perfect"? Don't overestimate lens owners: if it were so easy to scratch up a lens, there would be a lot more scratched lenses out there than there are.

I almost wonder if this is the case because everyone has been sold on the idea of using these filters...

Everyone uses filters --> All Used Lenses are scratch free

[SkipD]

From http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml



I almost wonder if this is the case because everyone has been sold on the idea of using these filters...

Everyone uses filters --> All Used Lenses are scratch freeNot at all. I have never used filters for "protection", and I have 40-year-old lenses with the glass in pristine condition. I have always used good quality lens hoods (generally designed for the lens by the lens manufacturer), and they DO provide significant mechanical protection in addition to keeping stray light off the front element of the lens.

[I Simonius]

No - it's reflections or gritty lenses, or good multicoated filters.

I got 'good multicoated filters BUT they are not easy to clean!
Still easier than cleaning the lens itself

Boy do they collect some crap where I am , must be in the air most of the time:(

[I Simonius]

Not at all. I have never used filters for "protection", and I have 40-year-old lenses with the glass in pristine condition. I have always used good quality lens hoods (generally designed for the lens by the lens manufacturer), and they DO provide significant mechanical protection in addition to keeping stray light off the front element of the lens.

I shot a Farm event an I tell you I wouldn'[t have wanted that on my lens!

I didn't see ANY splashes or grit head my way but somehow I got a fine layer of blotches all over my Filters

[Mathiau]

I have a Hoya HMC Super 67mm UV [O] UV filter on my lense - Canon 17-85 EFS IS lense and i have taken direct light source pictures and never had anything like that - will have to test that out thought with the candles - i think it is just your UV lense.

[Tee Why]

I use UV filters on all my lenses for protection.
With wideangle lenses in dimly lit places, especially with long shutter speeds, I sometimes saw flares or ghosting.

Now, when I shoot with my non-telephoto lenses at night/low/poor lighting situation, I remove the filters. I haven't noticed this with the telephoto zooms so I keep them on.
I've done tests with my Bigma where I even shot into a setting sun wide open and couldn't see the diff at 100% crop in RAW with or without a filter.

This is and probably will continue to be a area of discussion among photo enthusiasts till they come up with nearly indistructibel front element on lenses. There is the never a UV filter crowd, only expensive multi coated UV filter crowd, and the cheap UV single or no coating crowd. I buy cheap MC UV filters for "protection" but take them off if I think the lighting may cause the UV filter to visibly affect image.

It's a personal decision with no clear cut answers (as we can see from the lively discussion) so I accept it as such. Want to shoot with filters on? Cool. Want to go commando with no filters on? Cool...
Take them on and off? Cool...

[Tee Why]

I have a Hoya HMC Super 67mm UV [O] UV filter on my lense - Canon 17-85 EFS IS lense and i have taken direct light source pictures and never had anything like that - will have to test that out thought with the candles - i think it is just your UV lense.
Yea, those cheapo Canon optics.
;)

[stangster]

I have a Hoya HMC

Me too! Though I have the regular HMC and not the Super.
It's rated 97.0 vs 97.7 for the super.

I'm glad I saw this thread as I was about to post a similar question.

[Mathiau]

actually - i found some night shots i had, 30 second delay, 100 ISO moon shots and i had some lens flare! - i have only seen it in 3 of my about 30 pics that night. Sometimes one shot was same angle as the last.

[Pyrex]

I can see arguments for both sides, but as a "vision" lens user for over 50 years, I know there is a heck of a difference between uncoated and anti reflection coatings on normal spec's glass/plastic.

Despite the cost, for that reason I buy the best grade multicoat filters I can. Otherwise you could be be creating haze rather than reducing it.

I may have missed it, but I don't think the original poster told us anything other than it was a UV filter for a Canon, it may have been a real cheapo with minimal or no anti-reflective coating.

Despite the pro shooters view of it, I KNOW I would bugger up my lens if it weren't protected, so I'll keep my filters on.

[Curtis N]

I may have missed it, but I don't think the original poster told us anything other than it was a UV filter for a Canon, it may have been a real cheapo with minimal or no anti-reflective coating.Yes, it was a cheapo. But none of the people who extol the virtues of expensive, multi-coated UV filters (and there seem to be several in every thread where this is discussed) have ever been brave enough to replicate my "test" and post the results.

[photojournalista]

... or this is what could happen.


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19937&stc=1&d=1121911556


Does anyone have a similar shot with a "good" UV filter on? Please specify brand/model of the filter used. Thanks.

[Apollo11]

Great to find this thread----I've got a few shots of this same type----double images with candles in low light. Never thought the filter may be the culprit.
I'll post some up soon.

[Apollo11]

Here are a few examples. These have made me give up the candle-type shot, but now I'll give it another try, sans filter.
All these images were taken with either the 85 f1.8 or the 50 f1.4. I was moving a Tiffen filter back and forth whenever I'd use these lenses. The filter is about twelve years old and cost about $15, if I remember correctly. Time to invest in new filters!

These were all with natural light. No flash, even though some of them look like reflections.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5363/ghostimage1np4.jpg


http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/1848/ghostimage3ig2.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/6789/ghostimage4aw5.jpg

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/2928/ghostimage5og8.jpg

[NERV]

You spend over a 1000.00 on a lens and then put a $30 filter on it, haven't experimented enough with this to make a decision yet. Yeah you are protecting the lens but is it worth it. As long as you use a hood and put your lens cap on when you are not using it, you will be fine

[Texas95]

bw!Last night, while using my table saw, I put a $2 pair of safety glasses in front of the two lenses God gave me. Most people use UV filters for a similar reason. A cheap piece of glass to protect a REALLY EXPENSIVE piece of glass.

Safety glasses sometimes affect my vision. UV filters can do the same. It's a matter of risk tolerance vs. potential image quality problems. There is no single right answer.