Yet Another Post About My Issues With UV Filters by Lensrentals.com

[Canon Rumors Guy]

UV filters, they’re definitely a topic of much debate and little consensus. However, Roger at Lensrentals.com has written a great article about why you should never put a cheap UV/Clear filter on a good lens.</p>
<p><strong>From Roger at Lensrentals.com:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Yes, I’m sick of filter articles, too. But I come today not to educate you, but to mock others. Because yes, people continue to try to save a few bucks by putting a cheap filter in front of their $1,000 lens. And also because they buy what they think are good filters off of Fleabay or some used place and these filters aren’t what they think. This can particularly happen when you purchase a brand that makes different filters of differing quality.</p>
<p>How bad can it be, you ask? Well, today we’ll show you. Because someone had a <a href="https://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=nQhWgvN5bco&subid=&offerid=493986.1&type=10&tmpid=24414&RD_PARM1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lensrentals.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D70-200mm%2Bf%252F2.8%2Blens" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">70-200mm f/2.8 lens</a> that had been nice and sharp and then returned it because it suddenly got soft. They were kind enough to return it with their protective filter in place.</p>
<p>So the first thing we did, as we always do, was put the lens on OLAF, which is simply an array of collimated 5-micron pinholes. A good lens should show and an array of small dots or circles. But this lens showed an array of glaring star flare thingies. <a href="https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/05/yet-another-post-about-my-issues-with-uv-filters/">Read the full article</a></p></blockquote>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[LordofTackle]

The link doesn't work for me...

-Sebastian

 

[Chaitanya]

The link doesn't work for me...

-Sebastian

Same for me, I just went to lensrental site to check article.

 

[LordofTackle]

The article itself at LR works
Really interesting to see how badly a bad filter can affect your pictures (I don't use protection filters)

-Sebastian

 

[Random Orbits]

I keep filters on my filterable lenses. I've had cameras drop off the BR and the front (once with hood and once without hood) was cover with muddy water. I didn't have my cleaning kit with me, so I wiped off the lens with a shirt, took off the filter and continued shooting.

I was taking pictures at my daughter's school chorus last night with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and the results were good. ISO 2000-3200 with shutter speeds ranging from 1/160 to 1/400. Always have problems with AF focusing on the microphone rather than the targeted face (even though the microphone is outside the AF box in the viewfinder -- the box in the viewfinder isn't an accurate size, but it's annoying how much larger the actual AF point is). Between that and the slower shutter speeds, there were throwaways, which is to be expected.

Then I tried the 300 f/2.8 IS II, and the difference in acuity/sharpness surprised me. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is no slouch and I'm impressed with it in good light (i.e. soccer, portraits, general use), but the 300 is in a different league. Images were sharper/crisper and AF performance was better (although this is probably due to size of face/microphone to image ratio because I limited to a minimum distance).

I didn't think about the B+W filter in front of the 70-200 being the issue, but this article made me wonder. The 300 has higher IQ than the 70-200, but I didn't think it was that noticeable...

 

[ams2d]

See if the url below will work

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/05/yet-another-post-about-my-issues-with-uv-filters/

 

[Tsuru]

The link is just missing a colon between the https and //

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The link has been fixed, thanks.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

Lens filters are a tool and like any other tool each has their own purpose which can come with pros and cons. The purpose of the photographer is to determine when to use the right tool or not to use said tool for the job at hand.

Over the years I have used a good number of brands of filters. From the cheapest crap on Amazon to the more expensive B+W & Kenko Zeta filters. While I think for general purpose use for the price Tiffen gets you a lot of performance for such a low price, which is what I recommend to new photogs and general hobbyist. I do not use them much anymore as they will ever so slightly take away from the image quality. But really not by much. However for myself while I still have a few Hoya UMC filters, I mainly use Kenko Zeta wide band filters. The quality is top notch and they do not interfere with any of the image quality. Matter of fact the UV/Protection filters are so well made and clear that its hard to see if they are actually on a lens without looking for the lens filter ring. If your not familiar with what wide band filter is and why it may be something you will want in your next filter. I would recommend anyone to look up that information on Google or my channel on YouTube as I have a video on it also.

Now I live in the Philippines, we have two seasons here. Rain with more rain and rain and rain. Then we have the dry months with dust and dust and more dust. I am not stepping outside my office without a filter on my lenses. Not happening. They are without a doubt a valuable asset for protecting the front element of my lens. Even if I go to the beach were there is no dust, then I got sea spray. So yea need one there also. Now if I am in my small home office / studio. Then no I will not use one. Its clean in here. So thats my 2 cents...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was taking pictures at my daughter's school chorus last night with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II...

I didn't think about the B+W filter in front of the 70-200 being the issue, but this article made me wonder. The 300 has higher IQ than the 70-200, but I didn't think it was that noticeable...

As Uncle Rog points out, the only issue that you generally see with high quality filters is increased flare in some situations. I have noticed that the 70-200/2.8 II is particularly susceptible to the 'veiling glare' type of flare with a light source in the frame, and a filter (even a high quality one like B+W, which I also use) makes that worse. Shooting into the sun with that lens (e.g. outdoor portraits) will result in low contrast, and with a filter on the lens often an unusable image.

The 70-200 II also has issues with vignetting – a standard F-Pro mount will actually show increased optical vignetting, so I use a 77mm XS-Pro with that lens. I have a suspicion that Canon is close to the optical edge on that one – the other 'f/2.8 zoom trinity' lenses (16-35 and 24-70) both increased from 77mm to 82mm filters with the MkII updates, the 70-200 stayed at 77mm and probably should have gone to 82mm as well.

 

[LesC]

So whats the best UV/protection filter? I've always used Hoya Pro1D filters and not (knowingly) had any issues with them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So whats the best UV/protection filter?

Oh no you didn't...

 

[tolusina]

...I've had cameras drop off the BR....

Cue neuro, LocTite, etc, etc...

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=camera+strap+fail

 

[SeppOz]

So whats the best UV/protection filter? I've always used Hoya Pro1D filters and not (knowingly) had any issues with them.

Some information here (a bit dated) ...
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article-UV_filters_test_-_supplement_Introduction.html
Polarising Filter tests are more up to date
http://www.lenstip.com/139.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test_2015.html

 

[neuroanatomist]

So whats the best UV/protection filter? I've always used Hoya Pro1D filters and not (knowingly) had any issues with them.

Some information here (a bit dated) ...
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article-UV_filters_test_-_supplement_Introduction.html
Polarising Filter tests are more up to date
http://www.lenstip.com/139.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test_2015.html

As I typically point out when someone references the Lenstip UV filter reviews, it's important to note that 25% of their score (10/40 pts) is based on the UV transmission characteristics of the filters. While that is relevant if you're shooting film, since dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV wavelengths, UV transmission is irrelevant for dSLR users. If you factor UV transmission out of their scores, B+W tops the list.

 

[Random Orbits]

I was taking pictures at my daughter's school chorus last night with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II...

I didn't think about the B+W filter in front of the 70-200 being the issue, but this article made me wonder. The 300 has higher IQ than the 70-200, but I didn't think it was that noticeable...

As Uncle Rog points out, the only issue that you generally see with high quality filters is increased flare in some situations. I have noticed that the 70-200/2.8 II is particularly susceptible to the 'veiling glare' type of flare with a light source in the frame, and a filter (even a high quality one like B+W, which I also use) makes that worse. Shooting into the sun with that lens (e.g. outdoor portraits) will result in low contrast, and with a filter on the lens often an unusable image.

The 70-200 II also has issues with vignetting – a standard F-Pro mount will actually show increased optical vignetting, so I use a 77mm XS-Pro with that lens. I have a suspicion that Canon is close to the optical edge on that one – the other 'f/2.8 zoom trinity' lenses (16-35 and 24-70) both increased from 77mm to 82mm filters with the MkII updates, the 70-200 stayed at 77mm and probably should have gone to 82mm as well.

Thanks! I only use Xs-Pros for that same reason. Lenses come and go, but I keep the filters and it's easier if I don't have to think of which filter is restricted to which lens.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have a whole cabinet of filters, easily a hundred, probably a lot more that I've ended up with over the years and never sold. A significant number are B&H, but every brand is there. Tiffin used to be excellent, then quality suffered. Now, they make a wide range of qualities, from somewhat poor to excellent.

I don't use any of my filters except for rare occasions where some issue calls for one. I noticed slightly better resolution and ability to crop severely when I removed them. I really only trust those I personally bought new from B&H or Adorama.

I just bought my first new filter in many years, a Marumi ND 100,000 for the upcoming eclipse. After that, I doubt that it will ever be used again, at least not by me.

 

[infared]

Love my high-quality lenses.
Love my high-quality filters.
Love my high-quality filters on my high-quality lenses.
Love my peace of mind.
Love my resale values!
8)

 

[YuengLinger]

Love my high-quality lenses.
Love my high-quality filters.
Love my high-quality filters on my high-quality lenses.
Love my peace of mind.
Love my resale values!
8)

Yes! A pristine front element is a great first impression.

 

[dufflover]

Really should've had the word "cheap" in the title but yeah I know, it's less attention grabbing

I do have a couple but they are the better models like B+W and Hoya HD. I did used to use Hoya Pro's, but I don't recommend them anymore because they're an absolute pain to clean! Smear galore.