The interpolation in rescaling to 99.7% will likely have more detrimental effect than the filter. Better compare at 1:1 or 2:1 crop (100% or 200% exactly)?
I do actually still use neutral/ UV filters to protect my miniscule collection of 3 lenses - only because 2 of them are vintage lenses that are harder to come by (a good copy) and one is native with AF capabilities. I simply wouldn't want to shell out the kind of monies to replace them. TBH, with a quality piece of filter, there should be minimal to no loss of IQ or contrast. In fact, when dealing with much older vintage lenses that may not necessarily have multi-coating or have coatings that have been degraded (due to cleaning etc.), a high quality MC filter might actually help because of the cutting down of reflections. I an see how professionals who do very technical shoots may choose not to use filters on high-end glass. They might have insurance or backup lenses to cover the costs of repairs or replacements easily. I vaguely recall at one point in time (some 15 to 20 years back) that Canon offered a (paid) programme for professional photographers where-in Canon would provide a loan replacement unit whilst the faulty lense is under repair (most of the photogs I knew who took that up were pretty much using lenses in the mid-high 4 digits to 5 digits range. In such a case, they could afford the luxury of just letting the front element take the brunt of damages (and on a lot of these much more expensive lenses, the front element is actually a protective filter to begin with).
There was a very sophisticated test done with lasers several years ago with dozens of UV filter brands and prices. And the best didn’t always do the best. Some brands did affect it seriously and others made no differences. So it depends.
I worked for a major manufacturer as a technical camera specialist in TV. I remember there was a football player that "signed" the lens as he was being interviewed after a game. The chemicals in the ink destroyed the coating on the lens, and therefore the lens. That was a expensive mistake for that ball player. Made me think about protective glass on my SLR. Likely there are color shifts between manufactures of protective lens just like ND. All TV broadcast cameras use a electronic white balance offset (preadjusted) as you roll in ND. Thanks for your video, I've been looking for opinion on UV vs clear vs skylight, etc between manufacturers and ran into your channel!
Hi John. Glad this video helped. I bet that was a *mighty* expensive mistake! Yes, there are definitely variations between manufacturers, filters, and even lenses of the same brand, so critical work usually requires work in post. You might be interested in these two related videos: ua-cam.com/video/dBeeYMBpN38/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/IsqXSeq-5bM/v-deo.html
It would be fine if you could repeat the testing using a higher resolution camera like Z7/Z8/Z9 and telelenses from 200mm and up. I have found very visible differences using B&W to my surprise.
Hi. Do you mean B+W from Schneider-Kreuznach? If so, I have B+W in 77mm (010 UV - Haze) which fits the 70-200. Since I have a follow-up in the works I'd be happy to throw that test into the mix. Might take a few months though; I have a $*%!tonne of work backlogged.
My thoughts are that it really depends on the quality of the filter being used. Some, cheaper one's, will absolutely degrade image quality, making it hard if not impossible to get a locked on focus. While some, nicer more expensive filters, will not degrade the image quality, or if they do it is so subtle it doesn't affect the focus locking on, being clear.
I have been using B+W Clear MRC Nano filters for years. About $55 US. They do break easily though. I broke one a few years back by barely dropping it. But maybe it did protect the lens. Hoya has some now that are into the $125 range and I wonder if those are worth it? The HD3 UV protector to be specific.
Yes, I've used the B+W Clear MRC Nano extensively, also their "Haze" filters. Haven't had one break yet. Also have Rodenstock, Nikon, and recently tried a Hoya "Protector Pro" ($50) which, along with the B+W, were part of the test. I was impressed with its quality and neutrality.
I do use clear filters. I asked this question on a Z6/7 FB group & got a variety of answers. However, a little loss of contrast is enough for many not to use them! I’m unconvinced that comparing test chart images is terribly useful. I will conduct some tests with bright point-sources at night.
You'll always get a variety of answers on FB groups, many based on nothing more than hearsay and people dropping weighted steel bars onto lenses from height. 😀 I'd be interested to hear the results of your tests. Similar tests I've done (including the backlit test in this video) have not seen any deleterious effect.
@@RaymondParkerPhoto - I did some preliminary tests last night - handheld with some bright LED lampposts & saw no extra ghosting. I'll repeat with a tripod & 10 stops lower ISO. Needless to say, I always use the supplied lens-hood. One rarely mentioned advantage of prime lenses is that their hoods are optimised for a single focal length.
4:04 I'm seeing a big difference. Filtered left image whites are yellowish, and blacks are a bit faded. The image on the right, without the filter shows more contrast. Whites are whiter, and blacks are blacker.
I have not used a filter lens on my lenses for probably over 30 years... always use to before that but never since then. But it likely is that I change my lenses every 5 to 6 years anyway so have never thought that there is a need to. YOu are completely correct though - if I was heading off to a particularly dusty area I would certainly invest.
More importantly, it depends on the other "components," shall we say, of the contamination, like dust and grit. Modern lenses have coatings to repel water, but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to clean the front element too often. As I recount in the video, I have UV filters from my mountaineering days that I turned into what are commonly called "mist" or diffusion filters. 😀 Since I buy a protective filter with all my lenses, I've never even touched the front element, and I've never had cause to clean one.
Some filters have a colour cast, for sure. B+W has been my go-to filter for decades. Recently, I tried the Hoya "Protector" which is fitted to the 85mm S in these tests. As evident, particularly in the later video tests, there's no colour change in any of the comparisons.
The most important aspect of photography is seeing the photo, framing it and taking it. I agree with your comment. Most people already have the right gear to do those three things.
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The interpolation in rescaling to 99.7% will likely have more detrimental effect than the filter. Better compare at 1:1 or 2:1 crop (100% or 200% exactly)?
I do actually still use neutral/ UV filters to protect my miniscule collection of 3 lenses - only because 2 of them are vintage lenses that are harder to come by (a good copy) and one is native with AF capabilities. I simply wouldn't want to shell out the kind of monies to replace them.
TBH, with a quality piece of filter, there should be minimal to no loss of IQ or contrast.
In fact, when dealing with much older vintage lenses that may not necessarily have multi-coating or have coatings that have been degraded (due to cleaning etc.), a high quality MC filter might actually help because of the cutting down of reflections.
I an see how professionals who do very technical shoots may choose not to use filters on high-end glass. They might have insurance or backup lenses to cover the costs of repairs or replacements easily.
I vaguely recall at one point in time (some 15 to 20 years back) that Canon offered a (paid) programme for professional photographers where-in Canon would provide a loan replacement unit whilst the faulty lense is under repair (most of the photogs I knew who took that up were pretty much using lenses in the mid-high 4 digits to 5 digits range.
In such a case, they could afford the luxury of just letting the front element take the brunt of damages (and on a lot of these much more expensive lenses, the front element is actually a protective filter to begin with).
There was a very sophisticated test done with lasers several years ago with dozens of UV filter brands and prices. And the best didn’t always do the best. Some brands did affect it seriously and others made no differences. So it depends.
I worked for a major manufacturer as a technical camera specialist in TV. I remember there was a football player that "signed" the lens as he was being interviewed after a game. The chemicals in the ink destroyed the coating on the lens, and therefore the lens. That was a expensive mistake for that ball player. Made me think about protective glass on my SLR. Likely there are color shifts between manufactures of protective lens just like ND. All TV broadcast cameras use a electronic white balance offset (preadjusted) as you roll in ND. Thanks for your video, I've been looking for opinion on UV vs clear vs skylight, etc between manufacturers and ran into your channel!
Hi John. Glad this video helped. I bet that was a *mighty* expensive mistake! Yes, there are definitely variations between manufacturers, filters, and even lenses of the same brand, so critical work usually requires work in post.
You might be interested in these two related videos:
ua-cam.com/video/dBeeYMBpN38/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/IsqXSeq-5bM/v-deo.html
Very interesting Raymond ..You certainly got me thinking
Glad you enjoyed the exploration, Peter. Thanks for watching.
It would be fine if you could repeat the testing using a higher resolution camera like Z7/Z8/Z9 and telelenses from 200mm and up. I have found very visible differences using B&W to my surprise.
Hi. Do you mean B+W from Schneider-Kreuznach? If so, I have B+W in 77mm (010 UV - Haze) which fits the 70-200.
Since I have a follow-up in the works I'd be happy to throw that test into the mix. Might take a few months though; I have a $*%!tonne of work backlogged.
My thoughts are that it really depends on the quality of the filter being used. Some, cheaper one's, will absolutely degrade image quality, making it hard if not impossible to get a locked on focus. While some, nicer more expensive filters, will not degrade the image quality, or if they do it is so subtle it doesn't affect the focus locking on, being clear.
Yes, I covered that in the video. It was one of the main points.
The best test, thank you
I have been using B+W Clear MRC Nano filters for years. About $55 US. They do break easily though. I broke one a few years back by barely dropping it. But maybe it did protect the lens. Hoya has some now that are into the $125 range and I wonder if those are worth it? The HD3 UV protector to be specific.
Yes, I've used the B+W Clear MRC Nano extensively, also their "Haze" filters. Haven't had one break yet. Also have Rodenstock, Nikon, and recently tried a Hoya "Protector Pro" ($50) which, along with the B+W, were part of the test. I was impressed with its quality and neutrality.
I do use clear filters. I asked this question on a Z6/7 FB group & got a variety of answers. However, a little loss of contrast is enough for many not to use them! I’m unconvinced that comparing test chart images is terribly useful. I will conduct some tests with bright point-sources at night.
You'll always get a variety of answers on FB groups, many based on nothing more than hearsay and people dropping weighted steel bars onto lenses from height. 😀
I'd be interested to hear the results of your tests. Similar tests I've done (including the backlit test in this video) have not seen any deleterious effect.
@@RaymondParkerPhoto - I did some preliminary tests last night - handheld with some bright LED lampposts & saw no extra ghosting. I'll repeat with a tripod & 10 stops lower ISO. Needless to say, I always use the supplied lens-hood. One rarely mentioned advantage of prime lenses is that their hoods are optimised for a single focal length.
4:04 I'm seeing a big difference. Filtered left image whites are yellowish, and blacks are a bit faded. The image on the right, without the filter shows more contrast. Whites are whiter, and blacks are blacker.
Yep, I can see it even with youtube compression
I have not used a filter lens on my lenses for probably over 30 years... always use to before that but never since then. But it likely is that I change my lenses every 5 to 6 years anyway so have never thought that there is a need to. YOu are completely correct though - if I was heading off to a particularly dusty area I would certainly invest.
Cheers!
Don't use a lot of protective filters and always have a soft cloth or some lens wipes handy. A lot depends on the season.
More importantly, it depends on the other "components," shall we say, of the contamination, like dust and grit. Modern lenses have coatings to repel water, but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to clean the front element too often.
As I recount in the video, I have UV filters from my mountaineering days that I turned into what are commonly called "mist" or diffusion filters. 😀
Since I buy a protective filter with all my lenses, I've never even touched the front element, and I've never had cause to clean one.
What's the music at 4:54? Great video btw!
Thanks. Sorry I can't remember the music I used here.
Me I think the us type changes the color I use clear glass filters I use the BW brand
Some filters have a colour cast, for sure. B+W has been my go-to filter for decades. Recently, I tried the Hoya "Protector" which is fitted to the 85mm S in these tests. As evident, particularly in the later video tests, there's no colour change in any of the comparisons.
Thanks.
No worries!
A big flat glass surface in front of your front lens precisely calculated geometry. Use a lens cap to protect the lens.
Though, believe me, I do try sometimes, it's hard to shoot through a lens cap.
Photographers, please stop worrying about how perfect your gear is and TAKE THE PICTURES.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
The most important aspect of photography is seeing the photo, framing it and taking it. I agree with your comment. Most people already have the right gear to do those three things.
Makes no diffence actually at normal picture size........😊😊😊 Just forget it .....