Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 May 2011 (Thursday) 07:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What are the benefits of using filters on lenses?

 
casaaviocar
Senior Member
Avatar
887 posts
Joined Jun 2006
     
May 15, 2011 03:50 |  #61

SkipD wrote in post #12409509 (external link)
I certainly did. Even back in the 1960s, I fully realized the possibility of creating extra flare in my images when using any filter. Thus, the only filters I ever used were for the creative advantage of using them.

The only time I would use a UV filter in the olden days is when shooting color film and I sensed that a UV filter might improve my images. With today's digital cameras, there is absolutely no image improvement to be gained by using a UV filter so I don't even own one for any of my EOS lenses.

I learned some of the same lessons in the 80s. I am pretty sure it was reading John Shaw that led me to throw away my UV/Skylight filters. Haven't had one on for protection since.

The filter for protection is a POS (point of sale) item with a high profit margin, that is an easy sell, it all sounds very logical, and with the customer in a bit of a buying fog another sale is made and the commission is increased.


Rule books are paper they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal -ekg-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
twixraider
Member
Avatar
114 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Germany
     
May 15, 2011 04:21 |  #62

JJ360 wrote in post #12395002 (external link)
So I'm pretty new to photography been doing it about 2 months now and i would like someone to tell me what are the benefits of using filters? From what ive heard b+w make some of the best but what do they do. What are some pros and cons of using a filter on my 70-200 2.8 is or any other lens I buy? Thanks

You startet with photograpy 2 month ago and you already have 70-200 2.8 L IS.
Thats a hell of a start.
What is with your prime? Her you only have a cheap 50 1.8.
Thats a little queer.


Super Rebel, | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, | EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS, |EF 50mm f/1.8 II, |Canon 580EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
May 15, 2011 05:30 |  #63

* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ Emory
Senior Member
Avatar
857 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Bay City, MI
     
May 15, 2011 07:36 |  #64

SkipD wrote in post #12409509 (external link)
I certainly did. Even back in the 1960s, I fully realized the possibility of creating extra flare in my images when using any filter. Thus, the only filters I ever used were for the creative advantage of using them.

The only time I would use a UV filter in the olden days is when shooting color film and I sensed that a UV filter might improve my images. With today's digital cameras, there is absolutely no image improvement to be gained by using a UV filter so I don't even own one for any of my EOS lenses.

I don't understand "there is absolutely no image improvement to be gained by using a UV filter". B&W's web site shows pics with and without UV filters and there is a noticeable difference. Is this difference only seen with film?


James Emory
Olympus E-PL2, VF2 Electronic Viewfinder, Olympus lenses; 14-42mm, 35mm macro, 40-150mm, Manfrotto monopod, Slik U212Tripod, Canon Pixma MP990 Printer, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charliephoto
Member
87 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Ont.,Canada
     
May 15, 2011 07:44 |  #65

I`m of the view that this thread & several others like it is redundant & has outlived it`s usefulness
I also don`t recall seeing anyone here claiming UV filters will improve image quality, but i could have missed it between stepping out to get some more pop corn & microwaving it LOL.
Dang, i`m out of pop corn again, off to the store to re stock


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 157
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
May 15, 2011 07:58 |  #66

James Emory wrote in post #12412352 (external link)
I don't understand "there is absolutely no image improvement to be gained by using a UV filter". B&W's web site shows pics with and without UV filters and there is a noticeable difference. Is this difference only seen with film?

Yes

Most of the "sample photos" used in filter advertising are not very realistic. It's mostly marketing BS much like we see for a certain flash diffuser all the time.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
May 15, 2011 08:13 |  #67

James Emory wrote in post #12412352 (external link)
B&W's web site shows pics with and without UV filters and there is a noticeable difference. Is this difference only seen with film?

Yes. The a dSLR has a filter to block any UV that manages to get through the lens (ordinary glass gets rid of a lot) so that your camera is virtually insensitive to UV. Indeed, if there's enough UV to affect your images I'd be a lot more worried about sunburn and melanoma.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ Emory
Senior Member
Avatar
857 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Bay City, MI
     
May 15, 2011 08:17 |  #68

SkipD wrote in post #12412411 (external link)
Yes

Most of the "sample photos" used in filter advertising are not very realistic. It's mostly marketing BS much like we see for a certain flash diffuser all the time.

Mmm, for me, this thread was/is very interesting. I've come to the conclusion that I will only use my UV filters in adverse conditions such as in dusty areas and near water. Seems like many of the experienced photographers on this site prefer not to use UV filters so there must be a good reason for it as many of the posts made sense to me.


James Emory
Olympus E-PL2, VF2 Electronic Viewfinder, Olympus lenses; 14-42mm, 35mm macro, 40-150mm, Manfrotto monopod, Slik U212Tripod, Canon Pixma MP990 Printer, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jm4ever
Senior Member
Avatar
845 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 369
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Welland, Ontario
     
May 15, 2011 08:26 |  #69

James Emory wrote in post #12409300 (external link)
That does it. Next nice day we have I am going out and shoot identical shots with the filter on and with the filter off and then see if I can see any difference in IQ. My B&W UV filters are not multicoated and now that's got me thinking. Why did you never see all this crap when film SLR's were the norm. Back then, you put on the UV filter and you were done with it....never heard any negative comments about using them (UV filters)back then.

James I look forward to seeing the results of your testing. I would do it myself but I guess I'm too lazy.:oops:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ Emory
Senior Member
Avatar
857 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Bay City, MI
     
May 15, 2011 08:46 |  #70

jm4ever wrote in post #12412499 (external link)
James I look forward to seeing the results of your testing. I would do it myself but I guess I'm too lazy.:oops:

I'm going to make a note to do this if it ever gets nice around here. Michigan weather sucks. One day in short sleeves, next day with a winter coat on. I do plan on doing this just to see the results/difference if any.


James Emory
Olympus E-PL2, VF2 Electronic Viewfinder, Olympus lenses; 14-42mm, 35mm macro, 40-150mm, Manfrotto monopod, Slik U212Tripod, Canon Pixma MP990 Printer, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 157
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
May 15, 2011 09:36 |  #71

James Emory wrote in post #12409300 (external link)
That does it. Next nice day we have I am going out and shoot identical shots with the filter on and with the filter off and then see if I can see any difference in IQ. My B&W UV filters are not multicoated and now that's got me thinking.

Image quality problems with uncoated or otherwise poor quality filters are much more prevalent when there is one or more bright light sources in the scene being captured by the camera. That is the most likely cause of flare in images. Flare is also more likely to be noticed when the scene has greater contrast between the overall scene and the bright light source.

A good test setup would be a lit candle in a darkened room.

Another good test would be an outdoor night shot with bright light sources in the scene.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DM1975
Senior Member
Avatar
272 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Kansas
     
May 15, 2011 09:42 |  #72

twixraider wrote in post #12412056 (external link)
You startet with photograpy 2 month ago and you already have 70-200 2.8 L IS.
Thats a hell of a start.
What is with your prime? Her you only have a cheap 50 1.8.
Thats a little queer.

????? Where does this add to anything here? I feel posts like this can be done without. Their is not a thing in the world wrong with what this person has as equipment, regardless of when they started. If you do not like it I feel that comments like this can be kept better to yourself.


Website (external link)
Currently rebuilding my kit piece at a time
50D w/ BG-E2|430EXII|YN560x2|Cac​tusV5x4|White Lightning X800|Vanguard Alta Pro 263 Tripod|Sigma 12-24|70-200 f2.8L|24-105 f4L IS
These images brought to you today by the letter L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ Emory
Senior Member
Avatar
857 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Bay City, MI
     
May 15, 2011 10:01 |  #73

DM1975 wrote in post #12412776 (external link)
????? Where does this add to anything here? I feel posts like this can be done without. Their is not a thing in the world wrong with what this person has as equipment, regardless of when they started. If you do not like it I feel that comments like this can be kept better to yourself.

It may be a cheaply built prime but it does produce pretty good IQ.
As far as the "L" lens, good for him. Wish I had one.


James Emory
Olympus E-PL2, VF2 Electronic Viewfinder, Olympus lenses; 14-42mm, 35mm macro, 40-150mm, Manfrotto monopod, Slik U212Tripod, Canon Pixma MP990 Printer, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
danieldangz
Member
83 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
May 15, 2011 17:02 |  #74

For protection the costly lens itself




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,228 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5469
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
May 15, 2011 17:18 as a reply to  @ danieldangz's post |  #75

Filters are thin compared to front elements and as Skip has pointed out shatter much easier than a front element will. Besides being thicker most filters are not curved like most front elements making the front element even stronger. I've seen a filter shatter on a very expensive hasselblad lens that the impact would have never caused any harm to the lens had there not been a filter on it. It shattered and little shards of small and microscopic shards embedded into and also scratched the front element.

I have lenses that are 30 + years old that have never had a filter for protection on them and the glass looks as good as new. I am much harder than most on my gear and the lens barrels show that but the lens has always had a hood on it when in use.

Camera stores sell you on the fact that you need a filter because their profit margin is much higher percentage wise on filters and other accessories . I would never put an unmatched piece of glass on any of my lenses period. Not many here have more expensive Canon lenses than I have.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,735 views & 0 likes for this thread
What are the benefits of using filters on lenses?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ctschneider
1416 guests, 311 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.