How do UV filters affect image quality?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 10. 2019
- We've all heard arguments regarding UV filters. Specifically, some people swear by them because they can be your cheapest insurance but others swear to never have them because of the risk of image quality loss. Today I'm going to test three filters of various costs and determine if and how they change the images quality off of a Canon L series lens. Thanks for watching.
As always everything here is brought to you by:
www.CameraLessonsOnline.com
Where we work to make you a better photographer through online courses, books, and videos.
Honestly I really just like it to protect my expensive lens from scratching and taps. I'm a hobbyist but spend a big chunk of change on an EOS R and a Sigma 24-70 2.8. I really just feel safer with the UV filter on if a tree branch, piece of kit, finger smudge or god forbid, sand or rocks, glance my lens. I feel better knowing I can use my shirt to clear debris off my lens in a pinch and the worst thing that could happen is it scratches my cheap UV filter. Modern camera resolutions and quality are already so extreme that I'm not too concerned with the pixel peeping.
A couple of things:
1) I did have a filter of unknown (therefore probably not "good" as it had no brand name) quite drastically reduce the quality of the bokeh on a Canon 400mm L 5.6 lens. The degradation was enough that I thought I had been sold a bad (used) copy. In-focus areas were not noticeably worse. I will say that in that case, the filter made a big negative difference. I'm now going to systematically test filter/no filter combinations on all my lenses that have filters attached, as that experience makes me think the impact of UV filters might vary from lens to lens.
2) In your testing (and I appreciate your systematic approach) you observe filters slightly darkening the image, and equate that with "perceived saturation". I think showing the histograms of pairs of images under comparison is important to understanding how much of what you are seeing is shifting exposure and how much is actually changed saturation.
I actually just went back to no filter. I purchased 2 filters to test B+W T Pro Clear and Hoya HD3 UV. With B+W when zooming in, the image was much less sharper. With Hoya it was adding a bit of dark making the colors more saturated to the point where my own Lightroom Presets wouldn't work the same with the photos anymore.
Such a great thorough video. Subbed. I have always used a UV mainly for protection.
Very interesting topic. Well presented. Thanks. I was looking for info at reducing chromatic aberration, and found this. So now I will try my very much abandoned UV filters. Bye 👋
Really helpful, well-done video! - thanks! I’m wondering if you use a protective lens, either uv or clear? I’m consider buying them for two new lenses of mine. I’m leery of, and wanting to avoid, or at least minimize, the increases in color saturation, and contrast that you found (and I think I’ve independently seen in some photos made using some protective lenses). Are there any protective lenses that you can recommend as having minimal impact on photos?
Regarding the UV filters "darkening" by reducing exposure: Well, duh. You're eliminating some of the UV light, thus reducing exposure. In the "detail" section, I would have liked a comparison between near detail and far detail.
So it seems that cutting the uv light the saturation increases. I do like that seattle change.
Those of us who work with audio to compare differences in microphones or others use the technique of changing the polarity of one of the shots and there you can see the differences, you could do something like this with an image (for example, make a shot negative and subtract it from another and there appreciate if there are differences) ???
Given I'm shooting with 15-year-old cameras as a hobby, I will happily trade off a minuscule potential image degradation for some "physical insurance" that my front element is shielded from damage.
Would the effect be stronger with a telephoto lens and a UV filter? Like, if there is a difference, would it be stronger with a telephoto fully zoomed in? :)
Can you try $2 uv filter
You might want to do your test with weird bright lights and varied color brightness from the bright sun shining on the object. Lousy filters might cause flaring. Your test is with a much too simple benign shot. Also why use a UV filter and not a clear glass one? With the UV one you pay for the UV and the quality of the glass when you don't need any UV filtered out.
The video was helpful. Why didn’t you disclose urgent specific filters you used? Price can’t be most significant factor for filters right? How do brand and type factor in?
Good question. Talking brand tends to lead a discussion (generally speaking) away from general principles and towards brand splicing and I try to avoid going down that path. I've worked with three different brands of filters in my career and found this same pattern. I actually don't find brand, in filters, to make the kind of significant differences that many people assume.
I think it interesting that you have not mentioned the fact that the extra light registered in the non-filtered picture may in fact be UV light. Modern camera sensors CAN register UV rays, and the filters that manufacturers put in the sensors are not 100% effective.
That's not the case. I tested multiple filters that I own with a yellow LED light with no solar light at all. The results were the same. With filters on that was a drop in light.
I appreciate the test but you are doing your test outside so I'm not sure how valid your findings are regarding light loss. A simple change in density of a cloud or a breeze shifting a tree canopy to be slightly more occlusive can account for such small variances.
I see the very slight difference in contrast. Not worth the extra cost to be sure.
Back in 1987 I had saved for a Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED. On the third day of owning this lens, I accidentally bumped and cracked the protective Nikon L37c filter that was mounted on the lens. For me, that expensive filter still saved me a lot of money. To this day I still use UV Filters.
For me, that’s price doesn’t affect anything
You can not do a control test like this outside, where the light constantly changes. I will continue to use a quality UV filter on my EXPENSIVE lenses. It's cheaper to replace a $100 filter than the front lens element of a lens, which includes shipping charges to and from, labor and materials, which can get quite costly and you will be without the lens for at least one month or more.
This test has clearly caused you some cognitive dissonance. I too, like to think that my expensive filters are necessary. In my case, I have somewhat of a mixture of brands/prices as I am aware of how brands are marketed.
Although not scientific, I found the test very informative, and like many photographers, had wondered about the effects of adding glass.
As a counterpoint to your argument, the prevailing light conditions at the time of testing the most expensive filter, may have favoured it over the two less-expensive filters. We don’t know. What we can assume, generally speaking, is that UV filters do not significantly degrade a lens. Having said that, neither multiple lenses or UV filters were used.
The test wasn’t scientific, but it addressed an anxiety I have had concerning resident UV filters; I’ll continue using them, and I will buy a respected brand at a reasonable price.
@@99muddy99
Reading comprehension is essential and not your strength.
@@jfphotography69 It used to be, but I concede that I am getting older.
So folks use the cheap IV filters he just proved a 90.00 filter doesn't make that much of a difference. So save your money go cheap.
To my eye the images are much better with the $90 filter versus no filter...micro contrast is much better and the paint on the sign looks faded with no filter and bright and sharp with the filter. The details of the leaves and grass seem much better with the filter. I use mid to upper grade B+W or Hoya UV filters on all my glass, to me it adds just that little bit of micro contrast that I like
"micro contrast" is a made up term for sharpness.
you can just bump up clarity / contrast in post by about 5% and achieve the same effect. Worth wasting 90$ on a filter for that? Up to you.
For me it's more about protection of the lens, sometimes it happens that people or things bump into you and having that glass exposed on a 1000$ or 2000$ lens is not worth the risk.
@@Sukimaye to me its different than sharpness, its the suttle difference in color
@@CamperIV I agree, I use them mainly for protection...Any front element is going to get dirty especially someone like me who shoots wildlife and I would much rather repetitively clean a $90 filter than the front element on a $1500 lens
@@bassangler73 Micro-contrast is important to many B&W photographers I've noticed.
Multi coating on the filter is the answer to the increase in saturation
I suspect that’s true. The multi coatings I believe reduce reflection and so increase light transmission. That’s important to reducing flaring, etc. I suppose, but I’m not a big fan of increased color or value saturation, or hyped contrast. . I’m really looking for a UV or clear protective lens with some coatings of course, that gives me a result as close as possible to the naked camera lens. Otherwise, I may purchase some for the 2 new lenses I just got, but only use them in certain situations like blowing sand, or surf, etc.. I wonder what the creator of this excellent video does regarding protective lenses for his own gear?
you forgot the $10 filters!!! lol
Fair. ;)