UV Filters - personal proof that quality matters

Yes, another UV filter thread. But for this one I'm not asking questions, simply commenting that paying more for a quality filter really, really does matter.

I got a "free" Tiffen UV filter with my T3i kit + 55-250mm lens combo special. I also ordered a Hoya filter kit (with extras like a Lenspen) that included the HMC UV(C) filter. I had ordered the Hoya HMC UV(C) on purpose because I read the reviews at Lenstip.com, as linked from somewhere here at POTN:

http://lenstip.com …icle-UV_filters_test.html

I assumed that I probably wouldn't notice the differences in most conditions, but thought it worth while "just in case".

This morning I took a few shots with the Hoya and a couple with the Tiffen attached to my 55-250mm lens to see if I could easily see the difference. The sun is outside the field of view, above the top of the tree, maybe 1/4 or so of the height of the image away. The results speak for themselves:

Hoya HMC UV(C)

shinksma wrote in post #12809163
I was going to take a shot with no filter, but some clouds moved over the sun and I couldn't re-create the conditions in time.

You could have had time if the camera was on a tripod. Thus, changing filters would have been much less clumsy.

In addition, having the camera on a tripod would have kept the camera at precisely the same angle for both (or all three) shots. That would solve one argument that you may hear (lens pointed at a different angle to the bright light source).

Mind you, I don't argue with your results. It's just that your methods could stand some improvement.

and if you're going to redo your test using a tripod, it would be interesting to do one without any filter. Then you could have none, good filter, cheap filter.

Yeah, I concur the shots were quick-and-dirty handheld, and were more for my own edification than anything else, I just thought the results were so obvious it deserved posting as a public reminder for those folks (like me before I did my research) that don't realize how dramatic the difference can be under easily-achieved scenarios.

shinksma

The images will look even better without a filter.

silvrg35 wrote in post #12809631
The images will look even better without a filter.

I've stopped using them and am using just the hoods as protection.

tvphotog wrote in post #12809692
I've stopped using them and am using just the hoods as protection.

Another convert to the "dark side"?

I'm still not brave enough to shoot without a filter, too many things out there just waiting to scratch my lens in a desert climate. On the good side the lens element on my 2 year old 17-85mm is still dust free likely thanks to the filter.

silvrg35 wrote in post #12809631
The images will look even better without a filter.

Yeah, I concur that would be the case - naked lens would be better. But I've been playing with some filters just to see what they do, and getting into the habit of putting them on or off as required rather than just leaving whatever is there on the lens.

I have a CP filter on my 18-55mm and I keep meaning to play with it at various times of the day to see how it affects the sky/reflections/etc, but since I just received my 15-85mm (naked, no filter, hood on the way), I've been too busy playing with field of view on walks around the yard and lake etc.

shinksma

I'm pretty sure no one is arguing that cheap Tiffens are horrible...

and that every filter does something....that is why it is called a filter.