What's new
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!


hershy314

Guru
Messages
1,616
Likes
769
Just picked up a Tiffen 52mm UV protector lens filter. I wasn't sure what to expect when it arrived today. I've taken a few test shots outside with it to see what/if any thing would change. I think it changed for the better, but I wanted to get other opinions on it.

_MG_9184.jpg

On the left is without the filter and on the right is with the filter. Neither side was edited, both are straight from the camera.
 

PhotoBarney

Member
Messages
22
Likes
8
The difference you see is probably just a difference of exposure.
The only use for them today is to protect the front element ( I assume you're using a digital camera)
They were useful on film cameras to protect the film from UV rays but that's built into digital cameras today.

IMHO if you had only one filter it should be a circular polarizer.
Even a cheap one isn't cheap.
A cheap one can be $20 a good one several hundred.

As far as your filter it's function isn't much more than a front element protector.
 

PhotoBarney

Member
Messages
22
Likes
8
Yeah the exposure does change slightly. I am using a digital camera (Canon Rebel XTi). I thought this would of been a good buy, probably still is. I mean I only paid $7 for it.
That's a fine camera.

There's also the (protective) filter/no filter argument,
If this were a Photography forum the topic would light up.

Pro "I paid $200, $500, $800 for this lens I need to protect it from scratches.
Con "You paid $200, $500, $800 for that lens with optical glass and you're shooting through a $7 piece of plastic.

Bottom line IMHO if you see no difference with the filter on or off, then use the filter.
I'm part of the no filter crowd but that's irrelevant.

Even if you have no intention of buying one right now go to you're local camera shop and ask to try a polerizer filter.
Make sure it's a bright sunny day with a blue sky, then check it out.

On any filter by the best you can afford.
 

hershy314

Guru
Messages
1,616
Likes
769
When I get paid again I'm going to get one, there isn't a camera store close to me. I agree it's a good camera, haven't had any complaints with it so far. Right now I can't see spending $200, $500 or $800 on a lens, I guess I'm just cheap or poor. Current camera and lens I got for under $150. Course that really doesn't matter. Works just like new and that's what really counts.
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
1) I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I've never seen a plastic UV or protector filter -- they are always glass.

2) Take a look at the following post in this thread:
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UNFa?start=30

Shun is a superb technician who I highly respect. Several years ago, he did a test that should put this "debate" to rest once and for all, at least for filters of any reasonable quality and for focal lengths under 200 mm: He stacked several filters in front of a very high quality lens and saw no effect.

shun_cheung.jpg

If you are shooting with a really long, high quality lens, into the sun, and without a lens shade, you might see loss of resolution or increased flare with a cheap UV filter, but in other situations you're likely to be fine unless you shop for filters at the bottom of the trash bin.

FWIW, every photo that I have ever published (or posted here) has been taken through a UV or clear filter. No one has *ever* complained about lack of sharpness or loss of contrast in my images.

Tom M

PS - I forgot to mention that over the years, I have repeated Shun's experiment with several of my own lenses and obtained exactly the same result. If anyone doesn't believe this, doing a test like Hershey did takes seconds and answers the question unequivocally for their particular equipment and technique.
 
Last edited:

hershy314

Guru
Messages
1,616
Likes
769
As far as loss of sharpness using the filter I would have to say I haven't seen any. Only thing I have noticed is that with out the highlights are a little more blown out, but that could be the exposure. I usually shoot at aperture priority mode. With the filter on those same highlights are little nicer looking as are the shadows. I am going to continue to use this filter.

Tom that article was interesting and informative.
 

PhotoBarney

Member
Messages
22
Likes
8
Current camera and lens I got for under $150. Course that really doesn't matter. Works just like new and that's what really counts.

No, no, I'm sorry I wasn't implying you need expensive equipment, you don't, just trying to give an example of how some photographers think about filters.
All of my DSLR cameras are Canon.
My first was Canon XT with the the 18/55 and I loved it.

If you're not seeing a problem with the image it's smart to protect the lens.
And like I said this is an ongoing debate in photo forums.
 

Top