UV filters degrade image quality

nanhi · 09-06-2013, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by richardstringer

I bought the Hoya filter from Amazon which are pretty damn good, i've never heard of any fake stuff on there.

Quote richardstringer: UV filters degrade image quality

I wasn't 100% sure if they did, but yeah, they do. I used to have a 7DayShop cheap one on my old Nikon D5100 and it did degrade the image quality a bit, there was a little less sharpness and contrast and the image could be quite hazy sometimes. Anyway, now i've got a Pentax K30, I was using a Hoya and i've noticed more image quality degrdation, in fact the Hoya degrades image quality it seems, more than the cheap 7Day Shop one I used to have.

Anyway, i've done some research and quite a bit of googling and found that most people are in agreement too. Now I just don't use one, I know it's not protecting my lens front glass by not using one but I spend £500 on a K30 to get excellent image to then have a UV filter degrade the wonderful image quality. Do any of you guys notice the degredation of image quality?

Well Sir, its time for us to get confused.

Quote richardstringer Sir again: I bought the Hoya filter from Amazon which are pretty damn good, i've never heard of any fake stuff on there

So what is the problem??
Sir, Please do Google for the 1001 fake stuff sold on eBay, Amazon and other online retailers - SD cards, filters, Chinese fake DSLR cameras, Gillette Mach 3 shaving blades, Ray Ban Sun Glasses, and so on and on .....
Good Luck.

richardstringer · 09-07-2013, 01:43 AM

I know there's a simply mahoosive amount fake stuff on ebay but well, if there's loads of fake items on Amazon then I doubt themselves could really give a sh*t, Amazon allow sellers to take people's money for next day delivery and then deliver items when they can be bothered. I've complained about 20 times this year to Amazon about sellers and they just say it's not their problem, because Amazon take no responsility for how sellers scam people or how long they take to deliver items or if they even give refunds to customers. Amazon used to be a decent company but nowadays they're a greedy, income tax dodging (and that's a fact too which they've been in the British news for) company who care about profits more than their customers.

**ChrisPlatt** · 09-07-2013, 11:19 AM

In my experience a clean, good quality UV filter will not noticeably degrade image quality.
When not using a polarizer or yellow-green filter you will always find a UV filter on my lens.

Chris

traderdrew · 09-07-2013, 05:15 PM

I used to carry a $20.00 77mm UV filter. I tested it on a tripod photographing fine type. It did degrade the image. I had an expensive circular polarizer (over $100.00) that I think I lost on the beach. It didn't seem to contribute to any loss of quality.

hcarvalhoalves · 09-07-2013, 08:18 PM

Current coatings are decent and scratch resistant, enough to not warrant extra protection. Some are even oleophobic (no fingerprints). So, it doesn't make sense to add a filter as some sort of protective layer, the front element is already built with that in mind, without degrading quality. Here's a representative cleaning permanent marker off a Pentax lens with a towel:

You Tube

nanhi · 09-08-2013, 01:11 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves

Current coatings are decent and scratch resistant, enough to not warrant extra protection. Some are even oleophobic (no fingerprints). So, it doesn't make sense to add a filter as some sort of protective layer, the front element is already built with that in mind, without degrading quality. Here's a representative cleaning permanent marker off a Pentax lens with a towel:

PENTAX SP coating (Super Protect coating) test - YouTube

A perfectly legitimate video showing a Ricoh-Pentax Rep doing a one or two time demo on an SP coated Pentax lens. But try it over the 10 to 12 year life time period of this lens - say 2 or 3 cleanings in a year - and your coating has vanished. Kaput.
Don't overdo things. Simple logic.
And this business of "to filter or not to filter" has long past semantics. I have lost two lenses because I did not have filters on them - sea gull poo hitting a lens, and a Rolleflex TLR F Planar f2.8 lens over a period of 27 years.
Hey I am not a Pro, just a smart amateur to know when to remove that filter and take that critical shot. And I am not rich to keep replacing lenses, rather replace a good filter like the Hoya Pro 1D which I prefer.
Regards.

**JimJohnson** · 09-08-2013, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by nanhi

A perfectly legitimate video showing a Ricoh-Pentax Rep doing a one or two time demo on an SP coated Pentax lens. But try it over the 10 to 12 year life time period of this lens - say 2 or 3 cleanings in a year - and your coating has vanished. Kaput.
Don't overdo things. Simple logic.
And this business of "to filter or not to filter" has long past semantics. I have lost two lenses because I did not have filters on them - sea gull poo hitting a lens, and a Rolleflex TLR F Planar f2.8 lens over a period of 27 years.
Hey I am not a Pro, just a smart amateur to know when to remove that filter and take that critical shot. And I am not rich to keep replacing lenses, rather replace a good filter like the Hoya Pro 1D which I prefer.
Regards.

I am guessing you didn't have a hood on this lens when the seagull defecated? I have also found the need to physically touch the front lens element has mostly been eliminated using a hood. Mostly I just blow away the dust with a good bulb-type blower; no fingerprints; and I've stood in the surf line to shoot surfers with no spray reaching the front element. My K-A lenses were purchased new in the 1980's. In my film days, I used a UV filter when shooting in the mountains - the intended use of a UV filter. Since my digital body already has a UV filter applied directly to the sensor, the only time I mount a UV filter is when I am shooting without a hood - very much a rarity these days.

Might I suggest folks make a simple test? Pick a nice contrasty daylighted scene. Shot once with the UV filter, then shoot once without the filter, then shoot once without the filter but using a hood. Use the same exposure for all 3 shots. Then do some pixel peeping. If you are still happy keeping your UV filter on your lens, that's your choice.

**ak_kiwi** · 09-08-2013, 04:45 PM

FWIW I have used a front filter on a DA18-55WR whilst shooting my children's swimming sports. I had the lens splashed a few times with the pool water and later found that the chlorine had etched the filter.

**JimJohnson** · 09-08-2013, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by ak_kiwi

FWIW I have used a front filter on a DA18-55WR whilst shooting my children's swimming sports. I had the lens splashed a few times with the pool water and later found that the chlorine had etched the filter.

Where you also using a hood?

**ak_kiwi** · 09-08-2013, 05:55 PM

Yes (always) - I regard a hood as part of the lenses design

**ak_kiwi** · 09-08-2013, 06:23 PM

And here is a rather extreme example of how a filter, CPL in this case, can effect image quality on a SMC 135 M 1 :3.5

ChristianRock · 09-09-2013, 07:24 AM

That does make you wonder if some lens reviews were written by some people that had bad filters on them...

**JimJohnson** · 09-09-2013, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

That does make you wonder if some lens reviews were written by some people that had bad filters on them...

or like when I first got my 55-300.... I popped it on my camera, aimed through my office window at a building a couple blocks up the street and said Eew! The image was horrible!

Now I had used shorter lenses and focused on the tree outside my window, but not a lens this long. I thought I had just purchased a used clunker. I went outside and the image was great. Huh? I live in a 100+ year old house and my office window is original glass. Shooting through that window glass at 300mm, even though it was close to the lens so totally out of focus, magnified every defect in the glass.

Admittedly, even the cheapest filter you can find would be better than my window, but with today's sensor pixel counts, any defect will show up.

**nater** · 09-09-2013, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

That does make you wonder if some lens reviews were written by some people that had bad filters on them...

It should be mandatory that any reviewer state what filter if any they have mounted on a lens they are reviewing, and review guidelines be drawn up that explain why this is important (along with hood use as well).

**PPPPPP42** · 09-09-2013, 11:18 AM

Seems like for some of you this has degraded to people trying to win an argument more than anything.

The only filters that should be discussed are top quality multi coated filters, anything less is irrelevant to the debate (I'm not sure why some of you even mentioned the things you did).

For me who always uses hoods:
Film stuff, filter = yes, if I have one for the lens. Either color filter for black and white or a UV filter for color film normally.
Digital stuff, filter = maybe, if I have a reason to, like polarizers or ND or rarely for protection. As was said many uses of a filter are pretty well obsolete with digital.

As far as protection I did have a good haze filter save my A35-105 F3.5 when it was introduced to a rock face while I was working my way along a narrow ledge with the camera around my neck using both hands on the wall and the camera swung around unexpectedly (careless incompetence on my part). It etched the filter glass really bad but the lens was good.
I also had a filter help when I had icy spray and splash from a winter waterfall coat it during a low angle shot, which you can't see in the viewfinder though it screws the pics up. The water from that river leaves mineral spots which are almost impossible to clean off in the field (it takes distilled water to do it since wet cleaning wipes don't dissolve them, and that's after you melt the instantly frozen water off and dry it, which is super irritating in itself.
I have nothing to say to the old argument that broken glass from a filter would scratch a lens, if you actually managed to hit a filter hard enough to break it and drive the glass into the lens with enough force to scratch it, the filter isn't your biggest problem.
Something to remember protection wise is many lens hoods will pop off or are rubber and will flex out of the way so I don't normally count on them for protection. I only have one lens new enough to have the more modern style bayonet lock hard hood that people take for granted now.

Back to the original question of quality, with a high end digital camera and lens setup (not a kit lens) you would likely find a difference in quality even with a good filter, but you would have to be looking for it on a pixel peeping level which seems rather pointless, but then the question was would it or wouldn't it, not whether or not it would matter in the end result.

09-08-2013, 05:55 PM	#55
ak_kiwi Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Auckland, New Zealand. Posts: 328	Yes (always) - I regard a hood as part of the lenses design Last edited by ak_kiwi; 09-09-2013 at 10:44 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Image Hosting sites and Image Quality	Adinfinitum	Photographic Industry and Professionals	11	06-19-2013 09:00 AM
Resizing image in photoshop without changing the original image quality	LFLee	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	14	09-25-2011 05:18 PM
Hoya UV filters - Quality V Cost?	jeallen01	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	05-23-2011 11:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: Quality B+W and Hoya UV Filters: 77mm & 52mm	GaryML	Sold Items	2	05-21-2009 01:34 PM
UV Filters Degrade Image Quality ?	daacon	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	05-02-2007 05:16 AM

09-06-2013, 10:38 PM	#46
nanhi Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Bangalore, India Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 469	Originally posted by richardstringer I bought the Hoya filter from Amazon which are pretty damn good, i've never heard of any fake stuff on there. Quote richardstringer: UV filters degrade image quality I wasn't 100% sure if they did, but yeah, they do. I used to have a 7DayShop cheap one on my old Nikon D5100 and it did degrade the image quality a bit, there was a little less sharpness and contrast and the image could be quite hazy sometimes. Anyway, now i've got a Pentax K30, I was using a Hoya and i've noticed more image quality degrdation, in fact the Hoya degrades image quality it seems, more than the cheap 7Day Shop one I used to have. Anyway, i've done some research and quite a bit of googling and found that most people are in agreement too. Now I just don't use one, I know it's not protecting my lens front glass by not using one but I spend £500 on a K30 to get excellent image to then have a UV filter degrade the wonderful image quality. Do any of you guys notice the degredation of image quality? Well Sir, its time for us to get confused. Quote richardstringer Sir again: I bought the Hoya filter from Amazon which are pretty damn good, i've never heard of any fake stuff on there So what is the problem?? Sir, Please do Google for the 1001 fake stuff sold on eBay, Amazon and other online retailers - SD cards, filters, Chinese fake DSLR cameras, Gillette Mach 3 shaving blades, Ray Ban Sun Glasses, and so on and on ..... Good Luck.

09-07-2013, 01:43 AM	#47
richardstringer Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Boston, Lincolnshire Posts: 145 Original Poster	I know there's a simply mahoosive amount fake stuff on ebay but well, if there's loads of fake items on Amazon then I doubt themselves could really give a sh*t, Amazon allow sellers to take people's money for next day delivery and then deliver items when they can be bothered. I've complained about 20 times this year to Amazon about sellers and they just say it's not their problem, because Amazon take no responsility for how sellers scam people or how long they take to deliver items or if they even give refunds to customers. Amazon used to be a decent company but nowadays they're a greedy, income tax dodging (and that's a fact too which they've been in the British news for) company who care about profits more than their customers.

09-07-2013, 11:19 AM	#48
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	In my experience a clean, good quality UV filter will not noticeably degrade image quality. When not using a polarizer or yellow-green filter you will always find a UV filter on my lens. Chris

09-07-2013, 05:15 PM	#49
traderdrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 639	I used to carry a $20.00 77mm UV filter. I tested it on a tripod photographing fine type. It did degrade the image. I had an expensive circular polarizer (over $100.00) that I think I lost on the beach. It didn't seem to contribute to any loss of quality.

09-08-2013, 01:11 AM - 1 Like	#51
nanhi Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Bangalore, India Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 469	Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves Current coatings are decent and scratch resistant, enough to not warrant extra protection. Some are even oleophobic (no fingerprints). So, it doesn't make sense to add a filter as some sort of protective layer, the front element is already built with that in mind, without degrading quality. Here's a representative cleaning permanent marker off a Pentax lens with a towel: PENTAX SP coating (Super Protect coating) test - YouTube A perfectly legitimate video showing a Ricoh-Pentax Rep doing a one or two time demo on an SP coated Pentax lens. But try it over the 10 to 12 year life time period of this lens - say 2 or 3 cleanings in a year - and your coating has vanished. Kaput. Don't overdo things. Simple logic. And this business of "to filter or not to filter" has long past semantics. I have lost two lenses because I did not have filters on them - sea gull poo hitting a lens, and a Rolleflex TLR F Planar f2.8 lens over a period of 27 years. Hey I am not a Pro, just a smart amateur to know when to remove that filter and take that critical shot. And I am not rich to keep replacing lenses, rather replace a good filter like the Hoya Pro 1D which I prefer. Regards.

09-08-2013, 04:52 AM	#52
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,772	Originally posted by nanhi A perfectly legitimate video showing a Ricoh-Pentax Rep doing a one or two time demo on an SP coated Pentax lens. But try it over the 10 to 12 year life time period of this lens - say 2 or 3 cleanings in a year - and your coating has vanished. Kaput. Don't overdo things. Simple logic. And this business of "to filter or not to filter" has long past semantics. I have lost two lenses because I did not have filters on them - sea gull poo hitting a lens, and a Rolleflex TLR F Planar f2.8 lens over a period of 27 years. Hey I am not a Pro, just a smart amateur to know when to remove that filter and take that critical shot. And I am not rich to keep replacing lenses, rather replace a good filter like the Hoya Pro 1D which I prefer. Regards. I am guessing you didn't have a hood on this lens when the seagull defecated? I have also found the need to physically touch the front lens element has mostly been eliminated using a hood. Mostly I just blow away the dust with a good bulb-type blower; no fingerprints; and I've stood in the surf line to shoot surfers with no spray reaching the front element. My K-A lenses were purchased new in the 1980's. In my film days, I used a UV filter when shooting in the mountains - the intended use of a UV filter. Since my digital body already has a UV filter applied directly to the sensor, the only time I mount a UV filter is when I am shooting without a hood - very much a rarity these days. Might I suggest folks make a simple test? Pick a nice contrasty daylighted scene. Shot once with the UV filter, then shoot once without the filter, then shoot once without the filter but using a hood. Use the same exposure for all 3 shots. Then do some pixel peeping. If you are still happy keeping your UV filter on your lens, that's your choice.

09-08-2013, 04:45 PM	#53
ak_kiwi Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Auckland, New Zealand. Posts: 328	FWIW I have used a front filter on a DA18-55WR whilst shooting my children's swimming sports. I had the lens splashed a few times with the pool water and later found that the chlorine had etched the filter.

09-08-2013, 05:08 PM	#54
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,772	Originally posted by ak_kiwi FWIW I have used a front filter on a DA18-55WR whilst shooting my children's swimming sports. I had the lens splashed a few times with the pool water and later found that the chlorine had etched the filter. Where you also using a hood?

09-09-2013, 07:24 AM	#57
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	That does make you wonder if some lens reviews were written by some people that had bad filters on them...

09-09-2013, 07:37 AM	#58
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,772	Originally posted by ChristianRock That does make you wonder if some lens reviews were written by some people that had bad filters on them... or like when I first got my 55-300.... I popped it on my camera, aimed through my office window at a building a couple blocks up the street and said Eew! The image was horrible! Now I had used shorter lenses and focused on the tree outside my window, but not a lens this long. I thought I had just purchased a used clunker. I went outside and the image was great. Huh? I live in a 100+ year old house and my office window is original glass. Shooting through that window glass at 300mm, even though it was close to the lens so totally out of focus, magnified every defect in the glass. Admittedly, even the cheapest filter you can find would be better than my window, but with today's sensor pixel counts, any defect will show up.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-09-2013, 11:03 AM	#59
nater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: New England Photos: Albums Posts: 706	Originally posted by ChristianRock That does make you wonder if some lens reviews were written by some people that had bad filters on them... It should be mandatory that any reviewer state what filter if any they have mounted on a lens they are reviewing, and review guidelines be drawn up that explain why this is important (along with hood use as well).

09-09-2013, 11:18 AM	#60
PPPPPP42 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Albums Posts: 947	Seems like for some of you this has degraded to people trying to win an argument more than anything. The only filters that should be discussed are top quality multi coated filters, anything less is irrelevant to the debate (I'm not sure why some of you even mentioned the things you did). For me who always uses hoods: Film stuff, filter = yes, if I have one for the lens. Either color filter for black and white or a UV filter for color film normally. Digital stuff, filter = maybe, if I have a reason to, like polarizers or ND or rarely for protection. As was said many uses of a filter are pretty well obsolete with digital. As far as protection I did have a good haze filter save my A35-105 F3.5 when it was introduced to a rock face while I was working my way along a narrow ledge with the camera around my neck using both hands on the wall and the camera swung around unexpectedly (careless incompetence on my part). It etched the filter glass really bad but the lens was good. I also had a filter help when I had icy spray and splash from a winter waterfall coat it during a low angle shot, which you can't see in the viewfinder though it screws the pics up. The water from that river leaves mineral spots which are almost impossible to clean off in the field (it takes distilled water to do it since wet cleaning wipes don't dissolve them, and that's after you melt the instantly frozen water off and dry it, which is super irritating in itself. I have nothing to say to the old argument that broken glass from a filter would scratch a lens, if you actually managed to hit a filter hard enough to break it and drive the glass into the lens with enough force to scratch it, the filter isn't your biggest problem. Something to remember protection wise is many lens hoods will pop off or are rubber and will flex out of the way so I don't normally count on them for protection. I only have one lens new enough to have the more modern style bayonet lock hard hood that people take for granted now. Back to the original question of quality, with a high end digital camera and lens setup (not a kit lens) you would likely find a difference in quality even with a good filter, but you would have to be looking for it on a pixel peeping level which seems rather pointless, but then the question was would it or wouldn't it, not whether or not it would matter in the end result.