Play Spot the Filter

Manfrotto 190 MF3, Manfrotto 488/577 QR system, 40D, 70-200 IS L 4.0 wide open, remote and all screwed down as tight as it gets, neighbours not having energetic sex, all is calm

One image has a spotless Hoya Pro 1 UV on the lens and the other image doesn't.

Real world test based on non-perfect subject material, same for both, 100% crop from the centre, WB altered as I always do to the eye, both 'picked' from an identical area of the image, standard single pass USM to 100% crop, reduce to 800px and frame.

I do this exact same routine to 95% of my images, so if I see a difference now it matters to me. Do you see a difference between image 1 and 2?

Is number 1 no filter, 2 filter?

You should try shooting into the sun and see if there's any extra flare or issues, I think that would be more strenuous maybe.

Number 1 seems to have higher contrast which makes it look a little sharper...it might be slightly darker as well...all according to my eyes anyway.

Darren.

number1 has filter

Could be a trick...maybe neither has a filter.

#2; the colour is slightly warmer, in both cases, and the Hoya UV filter has a slightly yellowish cast to it...

Kind regards, Wim

1 just looks sharper to me.

i hate you.

Um.....#2 has the filter

2 looks less contrasty.

Try shooting into the sun. That's where you'll find problems.

And pick a better lens. The 70-200 has about 30 air to glass transitions, an extra pair won't make much difference.

How about a recent elmar? :P

I think the better question back to you is: Under those lighting conditions, does it matter?

Kevin034 wrote in post #5310099
I think the better question back to you is: Under those lighting conditions, does it matter?

Is this addressed to me or condy?

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #5310112
Is this addressed to me or condy?

condy.

edit: because I agree with you. a UV filter is actually what it says it is. In lighting conditions like that, I doubt that it does anything for the resulting image.

its clear that it doesnt matter if you use a filter or not.

but....just for the fun of guessing, I'll have to use instinct.

I can tell you are a filter user (because 1. You started this thread, and 2. you have a good quality UV filter)

Next: If you are a filter user, then chances are you keep it on most of the time, therefore when you did the test, you had the filter on already (image 1), then did the second shot with it off (image 2).

please tell us the real answer soon!!!
although its clear you have already proved your point!

I looked at the pictures and came to my conclusion, before reading what others had to say or how they voted, so I will put my results here:

1) Looks sharper, more contrast, better IQ, a bit warmer

2) Definitly not as sharp (maybe a tad OOF?), cooler colors, white is more true white, IQ does not look as good because it is not as sharp and seems soft.

Now which has the filter? I will say #2, but only because the IQ is not as good in #2. Potential that is from a slight OOF shot though and not a filter problem.

Also filters usually have issues with outdoors light with the sun and flare and such or by screwing up bokeh. Have not seen filters screw with a standard shot too much.