Roger's Corner

Good Times with Bad Filters

Published June 1, 2011

OK. First and foremost this is a fun post. It is not episode 362 of “Should you put a UV filter on your lens”. Some people use them. Some don’t. There’s not enough bandwidth to ever end that argument.

But here at Lensrentals, we have a ton of filters. We have some really good, very expensive filters. We have some OK, middle of the road filters. And because some customers, uhm, happen to return a very cheap filter in place of the one they were sent, we’ve obtained some crappy filters. Brand names aren’t necessary. If it cost $22 in 77mm size, it’s a crappy filter.

Anyway, one of the techs has to clean all those filters, make sure the threads are OK, and test them out. Honestly nobody likes to do it, so it gets put off until we need some filters or there’s just nothing else to do. So the other day Kenny is cleaning filters and testing the threads by mounting them one in front of the other until he made a nice mountain of 50 UV filters.

50 UV filters, cleaned and neatly stacked.

Not being the kind of people to let well enough alone, we decided to mount them to a 5D Mk II and 300 f4 we had handy and take a few pictures.

The well protected lens.

And of course see if the filters affected image quality. See if you can tell which images was shot with the 50 UV filters, and which without:

Shot of the building across the parking lot without filters (above) and with 50 UV filters (below). The one with the filters is actually better than I expected.

Of course there’s a lot of vignetting and haloing on the full size image:

Compared to no filters

Roger, do you have anything constructive to say, or are you just wasting blog space again?

Yes, actually I do. Fifty filters stacked is pretty ridiculous. But in that stack of 50 filters, as I said, there are some very good ones and some very bad ones. Lets compare a stack of each, shall we?

First, I had Kenny put the worst filters on the top of the stack (all were nonbrand, or brands we know are cheap and bad) and take a picture of the stack at an angle. All were freshly cleaned and if you look straight through them reasonably clear. Like a filter should be. But if you stack them and try to take an angled picture through several layers of them, the results were ugly.

View through a half dozen cheap filters stacked on top of each other. Try counting the filter rings inside the stack.

Yes, I know they don’t look clean in the image, but every one of those filters was freshly cleaned, and checked under a light. And if you look straight through them they were pretty clear. Looking at an angle tends to show you the weaknesses of a filter much better than looking straight through it. And remember: most of the light rays coming into the lens are coming in at an angle, not heading directly to the sensor in a straight line.

Now lets compare the stack with the expensive, top of the line filters (B&W, Heliopan, etc.) stacked the same way.

Stack of expensive UV filters one atop the other.

Hmmm. I’m starting to think there might be a difference here. But the proof is in the pudding. Lets modify our original experiment to something only slightly ridiculous. Instead of shooting through 50 filters, lets take the shot through 5 top of the line filters and another through 5 bottom of the line filters.

Here’s a 100% crop of a bumper sticker across the parking lot shot first with no filter, second with 5 stacked high end UV filters, and then with 5 stacked low grade UV filters.

100% crops of a bumper sticker shot through no filters, 5 stacked good UV filters, and 5 stacked cheap UV filters.

Now stacking 5 filters doesn’t have a ton of real world implications. Most people rarely stack two. But it is a fun demonstration that there really is a difference between good filters and cheap filters.

The good filters do a remarkable job: 5 stacked filters means 10 air-glass interfaces before the light even gets to the lens. That there’s only a little bit of image quality loss through all those filters is pretty impressive. This crop is from the center of the image, there’s more degradation to the sides, but still, it’s an impressive performance. And certainly lends credit to the idea that a high quality, multicoated UV filter has little effect on image quality.

Five bad filters, though, is another thing entirely. I’m completely aware, for those of you who are going to feel the need to point out the obvious, that nobody shoots with 5 UV filters. And I understand that one cheap UV filter wouldn’t have nearly as bad an effect on image quality as 5 of them. But I don’t think you can disagree that the good (and expensive, I know) filters have much less effect on image quality than the cheap filters.

BTW – before anyone asks, I avoided name brands of cheaper filters for a reason: many filter manufacturers make both pretty good, and pretty bad filters. You can tell the difference by the price or by reading carefully about the number of coatings, etc. A Tihoya $29 “high quality” filter is not the same as a Tihoya $79 “Professional” filter. This wasn’t meant to be a filter review, just a fun demonstration of the obvious.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

June, 2011

Author: Roger Cicala

I’m Roger and I am the founder of Lensrentals.com. Hailed as one of the optic nerds here, I enjoy shooting collimated light through 30X microscope objectives in my spare time. When I do take real pictures I like using something different: a Medium format, or Pentax K1, or a Sony RX1R.

Posted in Roger's Corner
  • Pingback: Picturing Change · Filter Stacking()

  • What will happen if you stack some x2 tele filters? Will that work? Will it focus?
    Will you consider this for your next “free time experiment”?

  • Nice article, and interesting comparison. I have to agree with the comments above:
    -I dont use filters (due to quality loss, etc), although if I did I would only use the best quality ones as the article recommends.
    -I do recommend that others use filters to protect the lens and “protect” resale value (although I have never damaged the front element of any of my lenses).
    -lenses filters DO make a difference to contrast, sharpness, lens flare, etc.
    -keep the lens hood on, and clean the front element regularly = best image quality.
    PS: If you use a filter, notice how much dirt gets stuck between the filter and lens element? Now you have 3 surfaces to clean regularly! 😛
    Each to his own, thanks for a great article! 🙂

  • Joseph G

    As a slight clarification-

    UV Haze filters and Skylight filters are NOT the same filter.

    UV Haze filters are absorptive of the ultraviolet portion of the wavelengths of light spectrum. Thus, they remove the haze often associated with higher altitudes. Haze filters do this by blocking the UV spectrum light rays that do not focus at the same point as visible light rays do. This is the same thing as the UV filters/protective glass on Halogen lights (as Halogen as a light source produces a high and sometimes dangerous level of UV spectrum rays). This is considered a cut-off filter. Light with a wavelength above a certain point is not passed through to the film/sensor.

    Skylight filters, on the other hand, are absorptive of visible light in the higher level blue/indigo range, but do not necessarily cut out UV light. They are effectively a form of subtractive color mixing, similar to FLD’s that balance out fluorescent lights, used to make an image more appealing. Averaging less than 1/5th of a stop reduction in light transmission, they appear clear in casual observation, but closer inspection or viewing at an angle proves that they have a salmon or bastard amber tint.

    As most digital cameras have a built in filter over the sensor cutting out most UV and IR light, the non-protective qualities of the UV filter are usually rendered moot. The same goes for the skylight filter, as the white balance engine in digital cameras or RAW processing software can compensate/be used to compensate for excessive blue in images. Even simple tweaking in image editing programs will work for this purpose.

  • Brad

    Nice test. Simple 🙂

    Can you do part two with some harsher lighting conditions? A bit of flare, or something with some chromatic aberration?

  • lyle

    Good way of producing fog. lol

    🙂

  • I’ve switched to B&W filters, and have experienced no problems ever since. If there’s no CPL filter on each lens, there is a UV filter.

  • Pretty damn enlightening!
    I’m new to (SLR) quality photography, and all this makes me glad because I won’t have to put lots of money on filters, just little money on lens hoods! 🙂 I will now save the filters for the beach!
    Just one thought: What about polarizing filters? Seems a lot of pros use them for improved image quality of water and sky etc? Do they pose the same problems as UV filters? (They should?)

  • Andre Oliveira

    Thank you for the article. Very instructive.

  • Pingback: Photographs Taken Through 50 UV Filters « Global High View()

  • Rick

    I can’t find one for my 500mm. Should i duct-tape a piece of safety glass on the hood?

  • I never use filters… I understand the argument for ‘protecting’ the lens but I never understood why anyone would want to put cheap glass in front of their lenses.

    BTW, Jeef B’s post (above mine) is spot on!!! I hope everyone else uses filters so I can buy your lens from you someday!!!

  • I’m a big fan of using high quality filters as protection for my lenses, despite the cost. One of my hobbies is astrophotography. Astrophotography requires long exposures, which means that the lens and camera are exposed to the elements for hours at a time. During the course of this process on cool nights during humid times of year, dew can be a serious problem, or frost in winter. Some lenses are only fully weather sealed when a filter is in place. The first time you have to put a lens in a heating blanket, leave it in hot sun, or use a blow dryer to heat it up to dissipate condensation off of internal lens elements, you quickly take on a more serious attitude about these issues. I often use dew heaters and lint-free towels wrapped around the outside of the lens body to help combat these problems, but sometimes mother nature wins anyway (cable gets unplugged, dew heater battery goes dead, too cold too fast, etc).
    Besides astrophotography, I love doing landscape shots. These are often in imperfect weather, on rocky or mountainous terrain with wind, snow, sand, blowing dust, or other environmental challenges. I find it a heck of a lot easier and less nerve racking to remove a UV filter from a $1800 lens to clean it carefully than to have to do the same on the lens itself. I can keep an extra UV filter in my bag that’s cleaned and ready to go in case the one on a lens gets soiled. I should mention that I _always_ use the lens hoods on my gear, both to stave off the sand and dust, the dew, and to avoid reflections from bright sun etc. I end up having to clean the lens hood and filters regularly, but my lenses have no scratches on the front elements, yet, and there’ve been a few times when I would have missed a nice shot if I couldn’t have quickly removed a soiled filter and either shot without it, or put on a clean one.
    If you shoot without a filter, when the front lens element gets soiled, you have no choice but to either shoot anyway, or stop and try to clean it quickly. Cleaning too quickly/roughly is exactly how a lens coating gets scratched…

  • Pingback: Do you use a UV filter? - Micro Four Thirds User Forum()

  • Jeff B

    I never use a filter on any of my fine lenses, including Leica, Canon L, and Nikon. I do however, encourage all others to use them, even if they ruin the images because I might someday buy one of their lenses on the used market and appreciate that many of the old lenses have like new front elements because the original owner never took the filter off 🙂 . Like others that have commented, I have not scratched a front element in more than 30 years of photography and I NEVER shoot with a filter because I want the ultimate contrast my best lenses can provide.

  • Geert

    I won’t go into the image quality part, but there are two practical reasons to be weary about UV filters:

    1. A high quality UV filter often is about as expensive as a new front element

    2. A filter damages MUCH easier than a front element.

    I find a decent lens hood works very well for protecting a lens from accidental bumps and knocks.

  • Whoops, I should have provided an example: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.asp?photoID=11517631&catID=45873

    This was shot with NO filters. Had I had a UV I would have had flare all over the place. The sharpness and tone and contrast come from that Canon element staying pure as it inhales the light. Please destroy all UV filters, lol!

    Wait, one exception: if you’re at the coast and it’s windy and sand and sea spray are flying all over, yes, you want to truly protect that lens in that situation.

  • SW

    My two bits: believing that more glass surface means more distortion, I ran a series of personal test shots off a tripod using a 24-105L Canon 77mm lens: lens only, UV Hoya filter (more expensive) and UV Quantary filter (cheaper). The shots were long-distance across an urban valley.

    The with-filter shots were sharper than without. The Hoya edged out the Quantary by a tad.

  • Paul

    I only use a CPL or an ND when I need a CPL or ND. The “protection filter” thing started in film days as a great way to make a profit because stores didn’t really on lenses. Today there are 10x more customers.

    Anyway, go get your UV protection filters and toss them into the lake. They do a very bad thing to your inage: attract flare like bees to honey. That’s a MUCH bigger problem with digital due to sensor sensitivity.

    Protect your lens with th ebest thing available, a lens hood (glad all L lenses come with one). Besides the glass being set way back, you are guarded from any stray light across your lens which causes flare and decreases contrast. My $2500 Canon 70-200mm/2.8 is insanely good at transmitting contrast to the sensor, BUT ONLY WITH A LENS HOOD IN PLACE. If I ruin it with even a “good” UV, then what’s the point? Better to go buy a $300 Sigma.

    Last thought: you might ask “But what about shooting in the daytime at high elevation, there’s haze, don’t I want to remove that with a UV filter?” Answer: The problem is not the midday haze, the problem is that you are shooting at midday. If you need a UV filter, you’re simple shooting at the wrong time of the day. If you want top-level photos, it is ALL about the light and the quality of your glass. If you want to shoot at midday, get a Point-n-Shoot to record your memories. But for a pro lens, destroy UV filters forever, attach your hood (YES, even indoors) and shoot when light is gorgeous, and you will succeed.

  • Antonio

    Great article.

    I have never used UV filters (I use others that are useful for what I want to obtain). For protecting the lens I use something I call a “lens cap” 🙂 20+ years, never have had damaged a lens.

    The UV filter thing seemed to me like something the store guy tells you and then gets to be “general knowledge”. Everytime I bought a lens, they wanted to stick a UV filter on it. No thanks, do not see the use of it, to protect the lens they say, no thanks, I will take the risk. And this article shows it is even worse to use them, you spend $1000 on a lens for the little extra sharpness, throw a UV filter and the reason to spend that amount of money is gone.

  • Frank Bosco

    I use Leica UVAs, B&W UVs and Hoya HMC UV(0)s on my Leicas, Pentax’s and Nikons……not a dimes worth of difference between them….On my Rolleiflex, I can’t see the difference between no filter and the Rollei U-V Bayonet II….so my working assumption is that one UV filter has no effect no matter which one…..

  • Rich Gibson

    Up till recently I did not use protection filters. I switched recently to using them. On a trip I was putting a sling mounted D700 over my shoulder but the sling slipped through my fingers and the camera and 17-35 dropped to the floor in a store. Gulp! The protection filter absorbed the drop and bent onto the lens sticking fast to it. The shock passed into my 17-35 and broke it. I’m out the filter and several hundred dollars for repairing the lens.

    No I didn’t have the hood on the lens; a lesson I will never forget.

    Rich

  • More evidence to continue using a lens cap and hood. Not a single scratch in over 30 years.

    Somewhere on the web is a page with photos taken with badly scratched front elements. Guess what? Most of the images looked great. The worst case for most scratches is reduced resale value.

  • I do mostly use UV filters, and if I could afford it, only Heliopan! But some lenses work better without – taking shots of the moon improved without, but Heliopan’s marvel that blocks both IR and UV cost as much as good used lens!

  • Jessica

    Personally, I prefer to leave a polarizer filter on my lenses as the “protective” filter. Since I usually want that on the lens for the photo itself anyway, it’s just easier to leave there and take it off when I don’t want it on.

  • Pingback: So you're OK with using filters on your lenses? - Leica User Forum()

  • Steve G

    I once picke up a 70-200 Minolta ‘beercan’ tele for free because the guy ‘never got a good result with it’

    Long story short – I took off the ‘store brand’ UV filter on the front and – shazam – excellent results…

  • Mike

    More than one person has said they use a filter for protection, but remove the filter before taking the photo.

    I do the same thing, but I use a lens cap for protection, not a filter.

  • Mark

    I was always taught to spend the money on the lens. Protect it with a filter, but when it comes time to shoot take it off. Lenses are expensive, why put even a $100 UV filter on a $1200 lens….doesn’t make any sense to me.

  • Terry Byford

    A great fun experiment. I have always used a filter purely for lens protection. Get scratches on that front lens element and then shoot with a light source either directly or obliquely shining into it and you can often say “goodbye” to decent pics from your expensive lens.
    A few years ago I bought a Sony R1 for its fantastic Zeiss lens. Thinking I could save money, as it takes a 67mm filter, I bought cheaply only to be horrified when pointing the camera out of a window to see a staggering amount of reflections that the filter’s coating couldn’t suppress. I took the filter back and waited 3 weeks whilst the store sourced a “proper” filter for me at 5x the price. But it worked. Nuff said, I think.

Follow on Feedly