[rbefly]

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

Yes, and some very recent threads, too.
Ron

[GibbyTheMole]

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.

That's kinda my experience as well. There are situations I don't use a filter as a lens protector, though:

1) Glare-prone situations and night shots
2) On my Tair mirror lens
3) On my adapted SLR lenses that I use on the Q
4) Macro

I've also found some lenses "fog up" a filter. I suspect there is something in the plastics used in the lens that produces a gas that fogs up the filter, but I don't know for sure. I only know that on certain lenses, filters fog up on the inside of the glass. It's strange, because the glass in the lens remains unaffected. These particular lenses can be stored in the same bag as the others, but they still consistently produce a fogging of the filters over time, which is cleanable, but a pain. The reason I think it might be plastic related, is because I've bought new filters that came in a plastic box and were fogged right out of the box.

[hcarvalhoalves]

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.

Actually Nanhi, the coating applied to these lens *repels* (on the molecular level) whatever settles on top of it (be it dust, water, oil, permanent marker as in the video), making it easy to clean. In practice, you are not even touching the coating when you wipe it, you only damage the coating if you brush with a material harder than the coating. As long as you use a microfiber cloth, all is well.

[ak_kiwi]

Originally posted by ChristianRock
That does make you wonder if some lens reviews were written by some people that had bad filters on them...
Yes, and some very recent threads, too.
Ron

I think Ron gets the point I was trying to make

[Lev]

I have mounted the Hoya UV HMC (c) on my DFA 50mm 1.4 and I can say that I see a huge impact in sharpness and contrast!! It's not noticable on pictures resampled with screen resolution, but as soon as I switch to 100% view, I can clearly see a difference. I'll do some before and after pics...

[nanhi]

Hi Lev, there are quite a few people out there who have been cheated with cheap copies of the Hoya UV HMC Filters - fakes. Even Amazon has NOT been spared and Evil Bay is notorious. I have the Japanese made versions of Hoya Pro 1 filters and they are top notch. I have tried many comparative shots with and without filters and you can "hardly" make out any difference.
I even have the Japanese version of the HMC Hoya Filters and they still hold good.

[Lev]

Hi Lev, there are quite a few people out there who have been cheated with cheap copies of the Hoya UV HMC Filters - fakes. Even Amazon has NOT been spared and Evil Bay is notorious. I have the Japanese made versions of Hoya Pro 1 filters and they are top notch. I have tried many comparative shots with and without filters and you can "hardly" make out any difference.
I even have the Japanese version of the HMC Hoya Filters and they still hold good.

Hi there!

I'm not sure about the origin of this copy really but what I can say for sure is that as soon as I opened it I noticed several dirty spots which I had to remove myself. I bought it at Amazon. I'll do some comparison shots tomorrow on daylight.

[Wheatfield]

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?

My A*600/5.6 came to me with a Tamron UV filter on the front. I decided to make an exception to my no UV filter rule based on how expensive and rare that lens is. Unfortunately, with the filter in place the lens was extremely soft. That filter now sits in a china cabinet under a little statue of a Rottweiler.
A lens hood give about the same protection as a filter and actually works to improve the image.

This is why when you buy specialty filters such as ND or polarizers you should be prepared to spend real money on them.

I have now spent more on ND and polarizing filters for my D FA 50/1.4 than I spent on the lens. There isn’t much point in buying an excellent lens and then turning it into a cheap lens with a bad filter. Just buy the cheap lens instead.

[nanhi]

Lev, you do not mention the make of your Hoya Filter. The Philippines ones are NOT too reliable too. Also a fake filter can be spotted from the many giveaways like - the printing, the knurling, the blackening, the metal used, threading difficulty on to the Lens, rough threading with chatter marks on the thread and the glass (coating color, discolored spots/blotches, coating evenness, waviness of the glass, etc)

[Lev]

Lev, you do not mention the make of your Hoya Filter. The Philippines ones are NOT too reliable too. Also a fake filter can be spotted from the many giveaways like - the printing, the knurling, the blackening, the metal used, threading difficulty on to the Lens, rough threading with chatter marks on the thread and the glass (coating color, discolored spots/blotches, coating evenness, waviness of the glass, etc)

It says made in philippines. Well, with naked eye I can't really tell something is done wrong, but I guess I shouldn't expect much from the filter within this price range. That's why they cost hundreds of dollars.

[JimJohnson]

With the growing interest in 'wet' photography (film) the interest in filters will grow proportionally. As I slowly move back into film, my filters are coming out of storage. The purpose of a filter is to modify light. Lens protection became a secondary thing. If lens protection was ever a primary thing, we would see products labeled as 'protective glass' rather than 'filters'. UV filters are designed to sharply reduce high-frequency light. Digital sensors typically already have one. They are unnecessary on the lens. Film rarely has a UV layer applied, so such filters became popular. However, unless you are in a high UV environment like a beach on a cloudless day or at higher altitudes, a UV filter isn't going to do much for you with film either. And as well documented, an extra optical surface can increase flare and decrease contrast.

As for lens front element protection... Properly sized rigid hoods will substantially reduce the risk of impact damage - and reduce flare. As for dust and spray protection, this is one of the biggest reasons lens manufacturers have continued working on harder coatings. Learn good lens care techniques.

None of this is to say that a sacrificial UV filter might not be a bad idea from time to time in higher risk locales. The key word here is 'sacrificial'. If you spend big money on good filters, are you willing to sacrifice them? And cheaper filters will degrade image quality. As the saying goes "There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch". Each user has to determine his or her risk tolerance.

[nanhi]

With the growing interest in 'wet' photography (film) the interest in filters will grow proportionally. As I slowly move back into film, my filters are coming out of storage. The purpose of a filter is to modify light. Lens protection became a secondary thing. If lens protection was ever a primary thing, we would see products labeled as 'protective glass' rather than 'filters'. UV filters are designed to sharply reduce high-frequency light. Digital sensors typically already have one. They are unnecessary on the lens. Film rarely has a UV layer applied, so such filters became popular. However, unless you are in a high UV environment like a beach on a cloudless day or at higher altitudes, a UV filter isn't going to do much for you with film either. And as well documented, an extra optical surface can increase flare and decrease contrast.

As for lens front element protection... Properly sized rigid hoods will substantially reduce the risk of impact damage - and reduce flare. As for dust and spray protection, this is one of the biggest reasons lens manufacturers have continued working on harder coatings. Learn good lens care techniques.

None of this is to say that a sacrificial UV filter might not be a bad idea from time to time in higher risk locales. The key word here is 'sacrificial'. If you spend big money on good filters, are you willing to sacrifice them? And cheaper filters will degrade image quality. As the saying goes "There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch". Each user has to determine his or her risk tolerance.

Jim, you write very sensibly on Filters or plain protective glass filters. And TONNES have been written on Filters.
a) You need not use UV or Skylight Filters on your lenses for your costly Lens protection unless you want other Light Modifying qualities like cutting distant haze in Mountain Landscapes or the blue cast. I use Hoya Pro1 Clear Multi Coated Filters to protect my Lenses. These Filters are pretty expensive. I can buy still expensive ones like Cokin or B+W as Hoya gives me the best bang for my money.
b) I have done many experiments using my Lenses Filter-less. I always, repeat always use a Lenshood. After a weeks shooting on my Travels I find plenty of dust, stuck on spots that just not can be blown off, and other gunk. Now how do these land on my Lenses????
c) Here I was shooting at a Pier in San Francisco with a 55-300 mm HD SP WR Lens. A Gull sweeps over me dropping POO which hit my lens + the Lenshood. I run to a tap - 5 minutes away - and try to wash it away. My Lens and Camera is Weather Proof. I said to myself I will give it a good cleaning when I get back Home.
I notice a discoloration on my Lens. I try cleaning it away thoroughly with a Lens Cleaning Solution. Nothing. The Lens SP + HD Coating is Permanently Damaged. The Acidic Poo has eaten the Coating away.
d) There are very many stories where a Filter has saved the Lens as in a drop or heavy bang.

[rogerstg]

A Gull sweeps over me dropping POO which hit my lens + the Lenshood. I run to a tap - 5 minutes away - and try to wash it away. My Lens and Camera is Weather Proof. I said to myself I will give it a good cleaning when I get back Home.
I notice a discoloration on my Lens. I try cleaning it away thoroughly with a Lens Cleaning Solution. Nothing. The Lens SP + HD Coating is Permanently Damaged. The Acidic Poo has eaten the Coating away.

That's a good story and sorry that you damaged your front element.
Of course, to determine if the protection is worth the cost, you'd have to compare the cost of replacing the front element or a buying used lens to the cost of equipping at least your more precious lenses with high quality filters. Then factor in the negative effect on image quality.

For me, the cost is not justified, though I do have two high quality filters for use in areas that I think I might need to protect the lenses. I've rarely used them, preferring the better IQ of naked glass.

[nanhi]

That's a good story and sorry that you damaged your front element.
Of course, to determine if the protection is worth the cost, you'd have to compare the cost of replacing the front element or a buying used lens to the cost of equipping at least your more precious lenses with high quality filters. Then factor in the negative effect on image quality.

For me, the cost is not justified, though I do have two high quality filters for use in areas that I think I might need to protect the lenses. I've rarely used them, preferring the better IQ of naked glass.

OH MY GAD! Rogerstg Sir, sorry for un-necessarily prolonging this "useless" Filter controversy. Are we PROS?? Do we need to start worrying about that 3 to 5% deterioration in picture Quality if any by using a filter???
I am a decent Photog - Not a Pro - and I have Pixel Peeped at my photos using a good quality Clear Pro 1 Hoya MC Filter on my Lenses.
I HAVE HARDLY NOTICED ANY APPRECIABLE DETERIORATION IN PICTURE QUALITY with and without a Filter - blown the photo up 200%.
Why worry Rgerstg Sir??

[rogerstg]

OH MY GAD! Rogerstg Sir, sorry for un-necessarily prolonging this "useless" Filter controversy. Are we PROS?? Do we need to start worrying about that 3 to 5% deterioration in picture Quality if any by using a filter???
I am a decent Photog - Not a Pro - and I have Pixel Peeped at my photos using a good quality Clear Pro 1 Hoya MC Filter on my Lenses.
I HAVE HARDLY NOTICED ANY APPRECIABLE DETERIORATION IN PICTURE QUALITY with and without a Filter - blown the photo up 200%.
Why worry Rgerstg Sir??

Please calm down and stop shouting. FWIW, I'm not worried, I simply don't like wasting money and I prefer better photos. No need to fly off the handle when you disagree with what someone else is doing; especially when it doesn't affect you.