On the other hand if you're working in a really dusty, maybe windy environment, you might get better results with a freshly wiped filter than a dirty lens that you can't clean safely until you get home.
Hi Jan, after watching your video yesterday, I spent today taking a number of test shots with a UV filter, clear filter and no filter, with a couple of different lenses (wide, long). I was not able to produce the kind of differences you show in your video. Definitely, no loss of microcontrast anywhere near what you have shown with your examples, especially the ibis photo at about the 2:10 mark. Which makes me wonder - do you suppose it's possible that you ended up with one bad filter?! Maybe something was off in that lot, like the coatings had varying thicknesses or were contaminated in some way. Have you tried taking shots with that same lens but using a different filter, perhaps another brand, or a more expensive brand? I have used B+W MRC, Hoya HMC, Carl Zeiss T* and Breakthrough Photography filters, in addition to a couple of Leica and Nikon filters for over three decades, and I have not run into the kind of loss of details you are showing here. Which is what made me wonder if I had been totally overlooking something so obvious and dramatic all these years. But as I said, I cannot reproduce your results, which is why I'm asking if you tried another filter brand. Cheers, Roy
Crickets. I've watched many videos and read many reviews and the main consensus is that flaring is the main issue usually seen with a UV filter. Good quality filters do not seem to degrade image quality in any perceivable way.
@@abysal311 - Only cheap $10 filters both cut the light transmission into the lens and cause reflections and flare. High quality filters are optically coated as well as the lens elements are, sometimes even better. It is not a credible assertion that all filters lead to a degradation of image quality. For over a decade I have been shooting with medium format cameras and lenses with filters, and I have never experienced anything remotely as bad as the claims made here. This blog by the author is factually incorrect and misleading, and the author should either substantiate his claims with some credible examples from high quality filters, or delete this video altogether.
I have used filters for years, every time I purchase a filter, I take images of both, with and without the filter, and at least the Hoya and even K&F Filters, I just cant find any image degradation, more less something like what the video shows. There are very cheap filter where I have definitely find serious image deterioration, like that time that I tested an Amazon Basic CRP filter, pure crap... But every Optical Glass filter that I have tried from the afore mentioned brands, I just cant find any loss of detail.
I haven't used a UV filter in many years, but I certainly did sell quite a number while working photo retail. One sale that I will always remember is when a couple came in to get a UV filter for the lens. They bought the filter and immediately put it on. As they were leaving, they ended up dropping their camera and the only damage was to the filter. They quickly bought a second filter to replace the broken one, and they left without further incident.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume only the filter got damaged. Lens internals could have been damaged as well, but they will only find out about it later when they look at the pics and they are fuzzy, or IS isn't working anymore and making loud noises.
If you are shooting as a pro with a $5000 lens you may be right, I shoot as an amateur on vacation and there I have a $500 lens and a UV filter made in Japan, I can't tell the difference in sharpness even on a 60" 4K TV and the colors are excellent. The UV filter serves me as protection against impact , dust , and can filter out the blue color a little better at the sea and in the mountains. Many pros use them and don't complain. Otherwise the faded photos in RAW never turn out like this , I set my camera so that I only tweak the details and the color of the light in Picture One . For the average photographer the UV filter is a benefit , it's a matter of opinion !
I don't think so. First of all, and with all due respect, you're shooting RAW not noking why. You should shoot RAW to edit the images to taste, I mean, complaining that RAW photos are faded means you don't know/don't want to edit to taste, so jpeg is best for you. Second, opinion and likes are one thing and facts are another. Any filter will degrade IQ no matter what, if you like using filters that's great. Capturing the moment with your family and friends is good on any camera.
Many years ago I had big problems with a cheap UV filter. Then I start using Hoya filters which apparently did not had a visible impact on the IQ. I also used lenses without filter. Even I was carefull, the front lens got some marks - the antireflex layer was damaged by dust. So in my opinion, a good UV filter is the best compromise. I use a Hoya protection filter on my 300mm and still get very good IQ.
There quite a difference between UV & protect filter. I also use protect filter from HOYA works very well, I do not see loss of details. Put on UV (also Hoya) and things starts to fall apart. So yeah, stay away from UV-filters cheap or expensive. Protect Filters of good quality, like Hoya, - works very well.
What was the brand of the expensive filter? I switched to B+W MRC Nano UV filters and with testing shooting a brick wall I see no diff with or without. I did see a diff when using Tiffen and some others high end stuff. Granted, this was before my R5 (5DIII) so maybe I need to test again with the higher mps.
I enjoyed your video. As someone who takes a belt and braces approach ie. I use both UV filters and lens hoods all the time, I have never done any testing to see if it makes any difference without the UV filter. The one flaw I saw in your video was that you started with the premise of a cheap and an expensive UV filter - expensive does not necessarily equate to good quality nor does cheap necessarily equate to poorer quality as you discovered. Some of the better quality filters are made from the best quality German Schott glass and have up to 30 coating layers. Do they affect image quality in any way? I don't know, as I haven't tested them. I think your video would certainly have been more convincing to me had you appraised us of the specifications of the filters you chose, rather than just basing it on price.
I must admit my experience with using high quality (B+W) Clear (and not UV) filters is different than yours. I've done several tests, both outside and in a more controlled environment and was unable to see any difference in any of the shots (even pixel peeping at 200%). The reason I put a filter on top of almost all my lenses is not fall protection (the front element of the lens is way more sturdy than a thin filter), but protection against dirt and repeated wiping/cleaning of the front lens element (even with dedicated microfibers, very small scratches happen and will get worse over time).
I have the same experience with the bw clear 000 mrc nano filter. I tested in a controlled environment with an optica chart and they are very similar maybe at 100% crop a barely visible advantage with non filter
Same here as well. Using repitable seller B+W 007 non UV for the same reason as you + lenshood for bump/"fall" protection. As you said, I see no meaningful difference in sharpness or tint, except for the shots into direct sun, where the filter tends to flare unpleasantly. Maybe a bare lens is the sharpest and greatest, but bare lens with smudges that I dont want to clean will be probably on par with shining clean spotless filter...
Any filter in front of lens will degrade quality it’s science.. these are just gimmicks.. to protect ur lens just be careful unless u shoot at paint ball tournaments or live in the United States 💩
I'm glad TH-cam showed me this video again. This year I bought RF 200-800 for my R6II and took many great photos with it. Recently I purchased the Nisi UV filter cause I was worried about dust settling on the lens. This summer I took the lens with me on vacation and I was quite disappointed with the images. The AF performance was not as good as before (especially in low/medium-light scenarios like woods), and the detail and sharpness were reduced too. I was really concerned. And today this video showed up and reminded me, that the problem may lie in my UV filter! I will definitely take it off next time and see if it improves the results. I think the UV filters may have a more significant influence on long lenses like 400mm, 600mm etc. I use the UV filter on my 24-70 all the time and never had any issues.
Haven't noticed any degradation with my B+W filters, but I don't really use them on my long lenses. Where I do use protective filters is when shooting landscapes near oceans, blowing sand, and rain. The filter absolutely will protect your front element from salt water and blowing sand. When it's raining, it is much easier to wipe off the flat surface of the protective filter than the curved surface of the front element. Plus, I feel like I don't have to be so gentle wiping the filter as I do when rubbing a cloth or Kimtech over the lens element with all it's special coatings.
Any piece of glass infront of lens will degrade the quality. Why do people buy expensive lenses when they have to put these silly gimmicks infron of it..
@@predatorishiMy experience is on par with the countless others that have stated it does not degrade their image quality. I have done countless comparisons in lightroom when I first got my UV filter. At all focal lengths on my lens I found absolutely no degradation even when pixel peeping. I think it truly matters the quality of the filter. Obviously there is gonna be some difference but if it isn't like what is shown in this video then there is no problem.
Not sure which UV filters you used, but there are better ones. I have a B+W UV-Haze MRC on my 100-500 and the shots come out tack sharp with good contrast - just like your No Filter examples. I'm a pixel peeper and would definitely notice otherwise! There definitely are low quality filters out there though. And honestly I could probably remove my filter and not worry about it. I always use the lens hood.
I also use B+W mrc uv filters and did several pixel peeping tests with my 5d3 raw files. Could not tell the difference. Perhaps the issue is more noticeable on higher resolution cameras?
I use the B+W MRC nano clear filters and do not notice a visible difference when pixel peeping on a Canon R5 with L lenses. Even the measurable difference in respect to image degradation according to the manufacturer is less than 5%. I would say this video is a little bit on the clickbaity side, hence it got a downvote from me. Hope the algorithms will do the right thing to prevent this from spreading further.
I had a bad experience with a Best Buy filter on my 300MM Olympus bought a B&W for about $200. CDN I think it's fine but you know I'm going to check it out again now.
Doesn’t matter, it’s basic science ur degrading the quality with those fancy so called glass. If can’t pass ur finger thru it .. ur wrong that it doesn’t impact the quality, it does and it can quantifiable, but some people can’t see it in some situations.
Same Filter on Sony A7R5 and all my GM lenses (6) and even after retesting there is ZERO loss in sharpness or color. It is just a level of security doing a lot of beach photography in salty and sandy conditions
If it is the glass of the UV filter that's degrading the image quality, what does that say about ND and CP filters and the possible degrading effects of their glass?
I think typically those filters, at least the high end ones are Ade with much better components and coatings, ensuring better IQ. Ido use CPL and CDs for video without much issue
if you are using a cheapy UV filter, that of course will degrade the image. But you are buy a high quality UV filter, you won't see a noticeable quality loss. A $20 UV filter vs a $65+ UV filter are not the same. You get what you paid for. I purchase UV filter for ALL of my lenses. My lens element looking like brand new when I remove the filter.
Thanks Jan, i cant replicate the degradation you showed with the filter but i think more importantly for me is considering the type of photography you do. I shoot ocean sports and pixel peeping is minimal, the salt impact on your lens and especially that you need to wipe, dry and clean every 15min, makes the UV filter a great sacrificial offering😉
I wonder if high pixel density / AA filter / tele lenses etc has something to do with it. I never noticed any difference with my FF L lenses, but have questioned the 'look' of my 70-200 on a higher Pix density crop body. Regardless, I use Hoya multi coated (Pro HD?) filters. I carefully wipe them when I need to ( fogging / water droplets etc) but they still show small scratches over time. Rather the filter than my expensive lenses.
It depends on where you use it. If you use it for bird photography in a safe environment, sure. Try to use it during hiking in conditions where a tiny stone can pop and hit your lens. It should be evident to any dumdum that no UV-better, use your brain when you should need it.
This is why top filter makers, including B+W and HOYA make clear protective filters. UV filters were designed largely to solve a problem endemic to shooting film. A problem that doesn't exist with digital cameras, so it's not surprising that corrections never intended or useful for digital shooting would degrade digital images. But that problem of inappropriate "correction" doesn't exist with the top clear protective filters from the companies mentioned. The real problem is that UV filters have a useful purpose only for film shooting, yet many people don't knows this, and sellers too often will sell whatever people will buy. I'll that three times, I've dropped a camera with a Canon L lens on it, and each time, the filter cracked or shattered, but the lens was left completely unharmed. I've enjoyed and benefited from a good number of your videos, Jan, but you're leading people astray with this one. You rightly steer us away from UV filters, but the reasons for concern don't apply to the best clear protective filters.
I think there is a place and time for everything. If you're going to shoot in bad weather, dusty conditions, and you're not gonna earn to replace your gear faster than you can damage it: use UV filter. If you're going to a clean venue, no danger of liquids or dust to damage your lens, just use the lens-hood: it will protect from accidental bumps and improve image contrast in certain scenarios. You'll look more cool too.
Have to agree with you, but a lot of times, dust and other kinds of dirt are unavoidable, and the it's a tough choice to let the front objective to deal with those. If you keep cleaning the front element, eventually you can wear out the coatings. That happened to me once and I had to spend $650 + shipping one way to get the front element replaced. What are your thoughts on using a high quality clear filter? BTW, amazing bird photos - my compliments.
To really do this test you really need to do it against a static subject, in static lighting (or the same lighting at least). In doing so, in my experience, with some filters there isn't any discernable difference unless you get into peeping at the pixel level almost. The rason I say this needs to be done in a static test environment is that even slight movements of birds can give the appearance of a filter not performing well, but it could also be lighting and how light is hitting the feathers for example from one shot to the next. I am in agreement that people shoulid avoid UV filters when possible (although there are some good times you might want to consider using one -- for example if you're shooting a Holi Fest or something -- then the slight decrease in IQ -- if any -- may be greatly outweighed by the protection the UV filter can offer, but for normal shooting I don't usually advise people to use them). But again, a test on a static test chart in artificial lighting will be the best comparison (reduces the most variables). People should realize that UV filters are not really necessarily a good thing for protection against damaging a lens. In some cases, it may prevent damage, in others it could cause damage. For example if you drop or bumpb your camera into something and the front of the lens comes in contact with something, a UV filter (or any filter realy) will either get scraped but not damage the lens, or in other cases the filter can break and damage the lens (and possibly cause MORE damage if it damages the front element -- I've seen times when people would have been better off NOT using a filter and nicking the front of the lens, versus a lens filter breaking and severely scratching the front of the lens). A lens hood is a better option as it doesn't impact optics, and can actually improve contrast in many cases, and acts as a bumper if you drop the lens or bumpb it against something -- and lens hoods are more expensive than some filters, but far cheaper than new lenses and front lens elements. So the happy middle ground for protectin would be a lens hood.
@@jan_wegener it does not matter. Your testing method is flawed. It is not controlled enough. It has to be done on a static subject under controlled lighting and tripod mounted with the camera shutter being fired remotely. Also why test a UV filter rather than a clear filter?
This adds variables and the opportunity for bias to what could have otherwise been a controlled experiment. I'm sure your findings are valid and repeatable, but (they're not proof and) I do wish there was more of the scientific method on TH-cam.
In a more controlled experiment, there was no difference in detail on the same focal plane between 3 UV filters and no-filter: th-cam.com/video/k_Z6zDBwt4c/w-d-xo.html
Certainly a filter has a 50-50 chance of doing more damage to the front lens element during a drop IF one were not using a lens hood. It’s an argument one hears all the time for avoiding use of a protective filter. However, it’s more likely the case that those who rely on a filter for protection will also in all likelihood be using a lens hood for that purpose. I fall into this latter camp and have never shattered a filter during nearly 4 decades of photography.
I dont use uv filters.but i had to remove a damaged uv filter from a friends lens i had to use a dremmel tool to release the thread .i could not be sent away because the broken uv glass was nearly scratching the front element.
For your test with the $100 filter, was it multi-coated? Also, are non-UV clear protective multi-coated filters any better? I live in a humid climate and near the ocean, so I always thought a protective “filter” helped keep moisture and salt spray out of my lenses. I guess if us owners of expensive lenses are concerned about front element damage, we should opt for the insurance at time of purchase.
Depends on the filter. I have a Hoya EVO Antistatic Protector filter on my RF 100-500 and R5. You can't see any difference, no matter how much you pixel peep. It's not a UV filter. However, if in doubt, leave the filter off.
Yeah, too many people conclude on crap filters they didn't even spend much money on comparing to their lens. And no, expensive ones don't necessarily mean they are actually good. One should look at the data.
Hello Jan, how are you today? I am having troubles with some of the steps of the editing course, Around the minute 56, you tell us to "load the selection" into a New Layer.... I can't figure out how to do so, can you help me out? Thanks a lot, and best wishes from Uruguay.
You can send me an email. I think you are referring to me to save the selection. So once I have the selection made. I create a new layer and then go to Edit - Fill - Black. Once that is done I untick the little eye icon next to the layer, so it's hidden. If you now left click and hold down the command/control key it will load your selection .
So, what about the UV filter do you suppose causes the deterioration of image quality, the coating? I always use Nikon's NC (Neutral Color) filter on my lenses thinking it will keep dust from getting in my lens. Maybe I should experiment with and without.
My filter saved my lens when i slipped on ise at night, there were absolutely no sese to use it for the things i was shooting, plus redusung and adding flares in such an environment, but i never take filters of some of my lenses exactly for situations like that, and is so much easier to clean filter in rainy/snowy weather, than smearing water and dust over lens coatings
the question is what kind of brand UV filter are used ? in my case using B+W i dont find any degradation what the sample look at the pictures it looks like using cheap UV filter
OK if I do not use a filter, in time there will be dust and dried water splashes, finger marks, etc on the front element. How do you recommend cleaning the front element to avoid cleaning marks, etc.? Thank you.
Super helpful thank you. Do you think that the clear protective covers degrade images just as much as the UV filters? I purchased a bunch of B + W Clear Protection Filters, should have watched this vid before dropping all that cash on them haha
I put on a uv filter right after getting a new expensive 150-600 lens, then i saw the images were absolutely garbage, took off the uv filter, store replaced it with a better one but i didn't put it back on, used the lens for half a year. I somehow managed to scratch it while never using it outdoors without the hood and only using a cleaning cloth i have at home (where i kept it inside glasses carrying case and washed my hands before using it), and having the cap on when not using it, luckily it's on the very edge so likely only an issue unless i shoot without the hood and sun shines on the front element, but i'd rather have a tiny hit in quality than having the quality degrade over time from micro damage accumulation.
Wondering what you think about applying this aspect to other filters such as polarizing, ND,etc. that are often touted for landscapes where sharpness is also considered as critical. If anything added to the lens compromises the image then trade offs would have to be consideration. What do you think?
I think high end ND/rads and CPL are made with better coatings and better glass and do not affect I the same. I use some of them for video ( Polar pro) and they are fine
A polariser cannot be emulated in post. If you want to see through water or avoid reflected objects from a shiny object like a car, or windows on a building the polarizer is your best option. If I'm taking pictures of an exotic car for a client, the last thing they want to see is my ugly head embossed on a photo of their pride and joy.
I've done a test with static subject, using a good quality Hoya filter and the result is not as bad as in the video. Yes, there is a slight difference in sharpness, but almost negligible. I wonder if the resolution of the sensor plays a role in this? Can it be that in a low megapixel camera (like 40mp)? interesting video anyway, it would be interesting to see one more video where other high quality filters are tested :)
You should try one of those protectors from Japanese manufacturers, somehow they aren't sold outside. They have got 0.1% reflection and I have not seen any noticible difference on any of my lens, including 70200GM2 and 50.4 GM.
Hoya HD nano UV or Urth magnetic Plus+ UV do not degrade the image. But they are not cheap. Ken Rockwell is a user. Sure, avoid cheap or unbranded gear.
In my own testing, difference was very minimal and noticable only at deep pixel peeping. Image viewed as a whole or even partially cropped are absolutely identical. Basically close enough that I personally don't care :)
I droped 70-300 is usm mark 1 on the concrete from 1,5m with the lens hood on no damage to the lens even the hood is alright and this crapy lens is not made to last so totally no need for uv filters lenses are quite hard to destroy
I know it’s not super beneficial to have one in situations it’s not required like in dry environments. But I assume it would be helpful in salty and misty environments like the beach right? So would it be good to use a high quality, high-transmission multi coated uv filter in these salty environments? Would the good quality uv filter still be worth considering?
Hi Jan , i have an old EF 500mm L MK1 lens and this has a clear filter built in at the back of the lease , although the pictures are excellent , should i remove this filter from its cradle ,or remove it altogether and seal the opening in which it is located .ps. i think your videos are well presented and very informative and are always about up-to-date camera models . However a lot of photographers cannot afford the latest kit . I still use 2 - 7dmkII ,and still enjoy their versatility . Could you consider doing a video on older models and their relevance and quality fo use along side the modern mirrorless cameras , i think that a lot of people would be very interested as many still use DSLR bodies .Thanks Jan Craig Steele -From UK.
Hi Jan, thanks for this reminding info. I tried a UV filteron my 150-600mm Tam G2 lens a UV filter. After some 50 shots, I noticed in my computer strange diminishing of IQ.. After this experience, that lens does not hold any filters (hood - yes). Recently I noiced in forum that somebody recommended to use a NC- neutral clear filter instead of UV. Have not tried, and will not test with involved dollars to buy and learn...by error. So, my question is do you / or anybody here, have any experience with a NC filter? Thanks
Is there such a thing as a good shot of a Bin Chicken (White Ibis)! Jan, I removed my UV filter after you mentioned it at the Gold Coast conference. I could notice the difference straight away. Might be my imagination but on the Sony a7iv with the 100-400 GM I think the AF fixed and stuck quicker. Maybe that was because of others tips I picked up at the conference.
It's easier to sell used lenses with zero hairline or fine scratches on the front element. I personally use high quality UV and/or clear filters and have not seen any perceptable image degradation even when pixel peeping. The only instance I observed image degradation is when I used a low quality CPL.
What are the brands and models of these filters? I used many filters and sometimes I noticed shocking deterioration on IQ. But with Hoya (0) filters I never noticed any deterioration and they are actually relatively cheap. I use my gear often in adverse condition and frankly speaking I am scared to leave my fron element exposed. Lens hood will not help you if a grain of sand stays on your lens and you won't notice that when cleaning the front element. But I will try to make a side by side test to check what is the influence of my filters on the image quality.
I have always used filters on all of my lenses, now that I have seen your video I don't believe I will use them any longer. Then I saw another video and the man said that each time you have to clean your lens eventually you will ruin it and it will develop a film over time what is your opinion on that.
I use Hoya EXO and B+W MRC filters. There might be some image degradation but I can't tell. My lenses always cost at least a thousand dollars so I always put a front element protection. I have discovered some specks of dust actually will leave a residue onto the front element so I'd prefer not to ever deal with the annoying cleaning issues by protecting the expensive front elements at the outset.
@@jan_wegener no i tested it because i wanted to know. filter off or on. both images are same sharp. but here is the thing. i am using a macro front lens adapter which doesnt fit on the cam lens. if i put the UV filter on it gives me a bit of extra thread to screw the macro lens on. i am using it sometimes and photos are super sharp as well. but seeing your shocking results i will test that these days again. cheers mate°
@@cloudpandarism2627 I'm sure there could be some particular UV filters that may not cause visible image degradation, but my guess would be even the same brand UV filter might not have perfect quality control and they all might not be equal. It's even more of a problem with so many different brands to choose from, I still think the best advice would be to completely avoid them.
@@KurtisPape by all means the filter i got is mediocre at best. not the cheapest but definitely not the most expensive. that being said i also dont own a 3000$ body with a 20k $ telelens. i cant get a lens hood as well for my cam. and even i do. the process of quickly screw the macro on would be alot more annoying. anyway. i will test it again these days. throw it on tripod, then take photo with UV on. and then without. at different zoom level and distances. lets see what happens. i will answer here again and share my results.
I tested mine in the past and there was almost no loss of image quality at all. Could only see a very very slight loss at extremely high magnification. That’s on a 36 megapixel body and pro lenses. I will test again tomorrow to reacquaint myself with the results. Hoya HD protection filters purchased from a store to make sure they’re not fakes.
7:40 Not only can I testify to that, my lens is pretty scratched up, but so I'd to even the sensor in my camera, and it's has numerous scratches all over it yet I hardly ever see it when taking photos unless I stop down past F11
Valid points Jan but having a filter on the front of my RF24-105 when shooting on a beach saved my lens when the tripod got knocked over and took the brunt of the impact. As I shoot landscapes primarily I tend to have a CPL on most of the time and do occasionally just shoot with nothing on the front but am always nervous as in the heat of the moment accidents can happen. It's down to each person to weigh up the pros/cons for them but better make sure you have good camera insurance...esp if you don't have a filter and/or lend hood on the lens.
Just had a repair of 560 euro because I damaged the front element of my Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L USM II in the field. After the repair I bought a pair of B&W MRC UV filters to protect my lenses. Did some testing but could not find any issues.
I use a UV filter to protect the lens on my tired old camera. The images I get from it look beautiful to me because I don't examine them at the atomic level.
I stopped using UV about 10 years back as I noticed huge degradation (possibly a fake), but I replaced with high end protector filters. More recently I when I bought new lenses I didn't bother with any filter. I note you focused on UV filters - any thought on protectors instead?
Jan - I expect that you have to use ND filters on your lenses for your videos exposed in bright light. I have mine in magnetic filter adapters for quick on-off as I switch from video to stills. I have never used UV filters, but I have used hi-end specially coated easy clean Clear ones (usually B&W) on my smaller lenses with shallow lens hoods. I don’t use a protective filter on my long telephoto lenses with deep lens hoods.
I just tested my Polar Pro UV filter and I can’t notice any difference in sharpness or color shift, and no haze. When looking at the histogram, there’s a very slight color shift almost negligible.
One thing: You should have tested with and without the UV filter but WITH the lens hood on the lens. The UV filter without the lens hood extends far forward and catches more unwanted light.
If people are spending $100 per lens for a “protective” filter they should look into the cost of insurance. My guess is that will be MUCH cheaper and cover more than just the front element including theft which is a much more likely event! And I’m pretty sure insurance has no impact on image quality 😊
I don’t think this needs to become a big insurance debate. Obviously these things would vary greatly by region. But I’m seeing premiums of $50/year to cover $15,000 of equipment. There should also be options to add riders to home owner policies that could be even cheaper. And thats more than just front elements but bodies too. And if settling a claim takes months you need to seek another carrier.
Hi Jan! my two cents... for protection (at least for those who lives in tropical countries like me) I strongly suggest a DRY CABINET for your lens. I got a ruggard 18l for $130 it fits my r7 with 100-500rf attached.
An interesting video and I was surprised at the results. I always use a lens hood and the lens cap. This video relates to a UV filter but I assume the same goes for a clear protect filter. Would this still apply on beach photos where there is lens spray which can get onto the front element.
I stopped using them after I had blurry issues with a Hoya one on the ef100-400 But I’m kicking myself as on my 1st shoot down the local canal shooting kingfishers a motorcycle came down the towpath at speed I kept myself between the camera and the motorbike but wasn’t till the day after when uploading firmware I noticed 2 tiny pinhead size spots of mud that had dried on the front lens well I got my cleaning gear out sprayed the new cloth lightly wipes the 2 spots off and shocked I now have 2 scratches on the front glass I’ve never had this issue with any other L glass and so after speaking to my insurance they wonder if there are faults or issues with the lens coatings or something so I’m going to send it off to canon for them to check out and see where I go from there but after how weak the RF lenses seam to be I’ll be keeping a filter on from now on it’s crazy as my old ef 600 f4 and ef 500 f4 there like over 20 years old and are now in better nick than this brand new rf 100-500 shocking
Hi Jan. Very interesting (and surprising) video on your UV filter experience! As a sharpness "fanatic" myself, I don't use any filters when doing product photography in studio. However, in my testing of expensive B+W and Hoya UV and/or Clear filters, I've found that only at around 400% magnification can I detect even a very slight negative impact on sharpness when using a filter...At normal magnifications or small print sizes, I can not really tell a difference in detail rendition. That said, I am considering the Nikon 95mm NC Neutral Clear Filter for the upcoming NIkkor Z 180-600 f/5.6-6.3...Reason being that Nikon makes their own glass, and I doubt they would make a less than optimum quality filter for that very nice and sharp lens, correct? Happy Labor Day sir!
Same here using only B+W UV-Haze MRC on all of my my GM lenses (6) on a 60MP Sony A7RV and even after retesting there is ZERO loss in sharpness or color. It is just a level of security doing a lot of beach photography in salty and sandy conditions.
Great video - really striking differences being shown in your examples. I think it is hard to generalize on this subject. In my experience I have found the RF 100-500 to be very susceptible to lower quality filters. I rented the lens before I bought it and got terrible results the first day out. Someone suggested I take the filter off and the second day out I got fantastic results. Since buying that lens I have done comparisons with it bare and with a top quality clear glass filter from B&H and I can discern no difference. I have shot my 24-105 and 14-35 L lenses both ways as well and cannot see any differences when using high quality filters from Breakthrough Photography, Maven, B&H or Hoya. So I think the level of degradation is not only filter dependent but lens dependent as well. That being said, I do somewhat trend towards removing the filter entirely in cases where it seems safe to do so. I would be interested if you tried this test on another lens, maybe not super tele...
The loss of detail is so extreme, it makes me wonder if it is affecting the AF performance of the camera, so the camera is not focusing as well as it should, with the filter on.
@@jan_wegener I meant to say the 16-35 not 36 but on page 12 bullet point 8 it says to ensure dust and water resistance performance attach a canon protect filter, not sure how to post a pic in comments, guess you cant. I have no idea on all lens thats just my current lens im using at the moment. Thanks
@@jan_wegener see if this works. I dont use a filter often just when I think its gonna be bad dust or rain. gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/4/0300015544/01/ef16-35f4lisusm-im-eng.pdf
I think a CPL filter is much more useful while also serving as protection. Although I can tell a difference in sharpness if I zoom into an image when making a comparison & always wonder if it makes a difference when looking at an image as a whole
What I find with uv, and nd filters, when I use them focusing jumps out of focus very often and when I just use the lens alone it’s normal , I shoot motorsport so when the same car comes back around same speed same racing line , that’s how I figure out what’s going on. Also the with no uv filter somehow I get better contrast out of camera and I also notice that the different uv filters when I hold it and look at it each uv filter coating shows different colors , also I used a few uv that actually made pics more warm in direct sunlight but when off totally different. I stop using filters unless I’m using a tripod and subject is in one spot.
The Laowa 100mm X2 Macro lense i bought last year ,,, had 2 UV[0] Filters 67mm Hoya and a Laowa UV Filter , I took them off ...never put them back on since . Though have been tempted to buy some filters for LE's whilst down at the Beach etc haven't even got round to it yet ..
Nice video, but you don't really show any pictures that have bad UV/IR pollution. I know this is more for stills, but I shoot on video on Blackmagic cameras (P4k, S4KPro) and they suffer from bad UV/IR pollution at the best of times. Its a nightmare to try and correct in colour grading. I think what would be great is if you showed what happens when you actually get UV/IR pollution VS not, then do a comparison from there, there is always pro's and con's and trade off to any situation when shooting, horses for course so to speak. Also have you ever shoot with a ND filter/VND filter and then looked at the increased UV/IR pollution?
Nice comparisons! I took my UV filter off quite a while ago because I also noticed some difference but I had been considering putting one back on because I wasn't sure how much difference the quality of a filter makes. I appreciate an advise that for once will not leave me wanting to buy new things :). Still I had a little nick on my 100-400 II lens which I also used without a filter which made the sale of it a little harder but taking less than optimal pictures every day in attempt to prevent this seems not like a good trade.
Hi Jan. I didnt noticed such degradation of image quality when using UV on my 100500L but will check this once again. I noticed on my 2870mm f2 problems with the right focucusing on certains focals like 50mm and 70mm on the wide aperture. I was getting ghosting on the photos but since I removed it is great. On Sigma 105A or 85A no loss in quality. They are sharp at f1.4. Adding glass to this combo like ef-rf adapter with builtin Nd filter changed it. My thoughts are that dependent on the lens built, prime/zoom You can use certain extra glass without changing a lot of quality.
IMO, the price of the filter does not indicate quality. You need to say what the filters actually are. I use Sony Zeiss MPAM filters, and there is very little degradation. I have been kicked in the lens element during a break dancing competition, and I am glad I had a protector on there.
I live in the desert so all my lenses have the clear filter. I don’t think it helps with a fall but it is intended to help with dust and moisture. I still use a lens hood as well.
I recently did some tests with my tele lenses in a controlled environment, mainly to compare them and find the best aperture. I also did tests with and without (rather cheap) filter. The differences were marginal. With enough pixel peeping you could find some difference, but really little. There are other YT videos with similar results. It also depends on the kind of photography. With big lenses with lens hoods which go wide in front of the lens and a setup which is so big that you carry it mostly with both hands, there is not much of a risk. The other side of the spectrum is a lighter setup bouncing on the belt with a wide angle lens. Or when it is used in narrow environments. The lens hood sticks barely out of the front lens and will protect it only in very special events. I have several UV-filters which did their job i.e. they got scratches or even broke but they protected the lens. When I'm on vacation and a filter is scratched or broken I can shoot without it or easily get a new one. If the lens is scratched that is much more complicated and expensive and might even render the lens a complete loss leaving me without that lens for the remaining time. I still might take the filter away if I'm in a controlled situation and I try for the best results, but in general usage I prefer safety over the last edge of quality.
Hi Jan Good to have you back. Last video made me think. I have several friends who swear that primes provide better quality than zooms. Not sure that’s proven but could it be that what they are seeing is that the use of filters with zooms is degrading the images? Bob
I recently got a UV filter (on a EF 24-105 f/4L) to reduce reflections when taking picture of birds on the water. It was annoyingly expensive, but does effectively reduce glare from oblique lighting. I found, however, that the auto-focus on my old SL1 was severely impacted by the filter -- it would hunt like crazy, and would miss the desired focal plane. Now I only use it for very specialized shooting circumstances, where I anticipate glare or want to get a cool polarizing effect -- not really worth the $, but not a terrible investment if I use it just when needed and not all the time!
On the other hand if you're working in a really dusty, maybe windy environment, you might get better results with a freshly wiped filter than a dirty lens that you can't clean safely until you get home.
Repeated cleaning/wiping of a lens can affect the coating over time
Hi Jan, after watching your video yesterday, I spent today taking a number of test shots with a UV filter, clear filter and no filter, with a couple of different lenses (wide, long). I was not able to produce the kind of differences you show in your video. Definitely, no loss of microcontrast anywhere near what you have shown with your examples, especially the ibis photo at about the 2:10 mark. Which makes me wonder - do you suppose it's possible that you ended up with one bad filter?! Maybe something was off in that lot, like the coatings had varying thicknesses or were contaminated in some way. Have you tried taking shots with that same lens but using a different filter, perhaps another brand, or a more expensive brand? I have used B+W MRC, Hoya HMC, Carl Zeiss T* and Breakthrough Photography filters, in addition to a couple of Leica and Nikon filters for over three decades, and I have not run into the kind of loss of details you are showing here. Which is what made me wonder if I had been totally overlooking something so obvious and dramatic all these years. But as I said, I cannot reproduce your results, which is why I'm asking if you tried another filter brand. Cheers, Roy
Crickets. I've watched many videos and read many reviews and the main consensus is that flaring is the main issue usually seen with a UV filter. Good quality filters do not seem to degrade image quality in any perceivable way.
@@abysal311 - Only cheap $10 filters both cut the light transmission into the lens and cause reflections and flare. High quality filters are optically coated as well as the lens elements are, sometimes even better. It is not a credible assertion that all filters lead to a degradation of image quality. For over a decade I have been shooting with medium format cameras and lenses with filters, and I have never experienced anything remotely as bad as the claims made here.
This blog by the author is factually incorrect and misleading, and the author should either substantiate his claims with some credible examples from high quality filters, or delete this video altogether.
12 years ago when I was beginner, bought B+W MRC uv for my few lenses. Back then my novice eye could tell the pictures were dull with the filter.
I have used filters for years, every time I purchase a filter, I take images of both, with and without the filter, and at least the Hoya and even K&F Filters, I just cant find any image degradation, more less something like what the video shows. There are very cheap filter where I have definitely find serious image deterioration, like that time that I tested an Amazon Basic CRP filter, pure crap... But every Optical Glass filter that I have tried from the afore mentioned brands, I just cant find any loss of detail.
I haven't used a UV filter in many years, but I certainly did sell quite a number while working photo retail. One sale that I will always remember is when a couple came in to get a UV filter for the lens. They bought the filter and immediately put it on. As they were leaving, they ended up dropping their camera and the only damage was to the filter. They quickly bought a second filter to replace the broken one, and they left without further incident.
That camera went on to ebay: "good as new, always used with a filter!"
If you are clumsy than yes buy a filter, if you are careful you don't need one.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume only the filter got damaged. Lens internals could have been damaged as well, but they will only find out about it later when they look at the pics and they are fuzzy, or IS isn't working anymore and making loud noises.
nice story
@@sew_gal7340 Exactly. That's why I never carry auto insurance, because I am a careful driver.
If you are shooting as a pro with a $5000 lens you may be right, I shoot as an amateur on vacation and there I have a $500 lens and a UV filter made in Japan, I can't tell the difference in sharpness even on a 60" 4K TV and the colors are excellent. The UV filter serves me as protection against impact , dust , and can filter out the blue color a little better at the sea and in the mountains. Many pros use them and don't complain. Otherwise the faded photos in RAW never turn out like this , I set my camera so that I only tweak the details and the color of the light in Picture One . For the average photographer the UV filter is a benefit , it's a matter of opinion !
I don't think so. First of all, and with all due respect, you're shooting RAW not noking why. You should shoot RAW to edit the images to taste, I mean, complaining that RAW photos are faded means you don't know/don't want to edit to taste, so jpeg is best for you. Second, opinion and likes are one thing and facts are another. Any filter will degrade IQ no matter what, if you like using filters that's great. Capturing the moment with your family and friends is good on any camera.
Many years ago I had big problems with a cheap UV filter. Then I start using Hoya filters which apparently did not had a visible impact on the IQ.
I also used lenses without filter. Even I was carefull, the front lens got some marks - the antireflex layer was damaged by dust.
So in my opinion, a good UV filter is the best compromise. I use a Hoya protection filter on my 300mm and still get very good IQ.
There quite a difference between UV & protect filter. I also use protect filter from HOYA works very well, I do not see loss of details. Put on UV (also Hoya) and things starts to fall apart. So yeah, stay away from UV-filters cheap or expensive.
Protect Filters of good quality, like Hoya, - works very well.
What was the brand of the expensive filter? I switched to B+W MRC Nano UV filters and with testing shooting a brick wall I see no diff with or without. I did see a diff when using Tiffen and some others high end stuff. Granted, this was before my R5 (5DIII) so maybe I need to test again with the higher mps.
I enjoyed your video. As someone who takes a belt and braces approach ie. I use both UV filters and lens hoods all the time, I have never done any testing to see if it makes any difference without the UV filter. The one flaw I saw in your video was that you started with the premise of a cheap and an expensive UV filter - expensive does not necessarily equate to good quality nor does cheap necessarily equate to poorer quality as you discovered. Some of the better quality filters are made from the best quality German Schott glass and have up to 30 coating layers. Do they affect image quality in any way? I don't know, as I haven't tested them. I think your video would certainly have been more convincing to me had you appraised us of the specifications of the filters you chose, rather than just basing it on price.
I must admit my experience with using high quality (B+W) Clear (and not UV) filters is different than yours. I've done several tests, both outside and in a more controlled environment and was unable to see any difference in any of the shots (even pixel peeping at 200%).
The reason I put a filter on top of almost all my lenses is not fall protection (the front element of the lens is way more sturdy than a thin filter), but protection against dirt and repeated wiping/cleaning of the front lens element (even with dedicated microfibers, very small scratches happen and will get worse over time).
…same here, usage of B+W clear filters and the results look just fine…
I have the same experience with the bw clear 000 mrc nano filter. I tested in a controlled environment with an optica chart and they are very similar maybe at 100% crop a barely visible advantage with non filter
Same here as well. Using repitable seller B+W 007 non UV for the same reason as you + lenshood for bump/"fall" protection. As you said, I see no meaningful difference in sharpness or tint, except for the shots into direct sun, where the filter tends to flare unpleasantly.
Maybe a bare lens is the sharpest and greatest, but bare lens with smudges that I dont want to clean will be probably on par with shining clean spotless filter...
Any filter in front of lens will degrade quality it’s science.. these are just gimmicks.. to protect ur lens just be careful unless u shoot at paint ball tournaments or live in the United States 💩
Thank you. Makes perfect sense. I'd rather wipe down the filter than the lens itself.
Thanks
Thank you!
I'm glad TH-cam showed me this video again. This year I bought RF 200-800 for my R6II and took many great photos with it. Recently I purchased the Nisi UV filter cause I was worried about dust settling on the lens. This summer I took the lens with me on vacation and I was quite disappointed with the images. The AF performance was not as good as before (especially in low/medium-light scenarios like woods), and the detail and sharpness were reduced too. I was really concerned. And today this video showed up and reminded me, that the problem may lie in my UV filter! I will definitely take it off next time and see if it improves the results. I think the UV filters may have a more significant influence on long lenses like 400mm, 600mm etc. I use the UV filter on my 24-70 all the time and never had any issues.
Haven't noticed any degradation with my B+W filters, but I don't really use them on my long lenses. Where I do use protective filters is when shooting landscapes near oceans, blowing sand, and rain. The filter absolutely will protect your front element from salt water and blowing sand. When it's raining, it is much easier to wipe off the flat surface of the protective filter than the curved surface of the front element. Plus, I feel like I don't have to be so gentle wiping the filter as I do when rubbing a cloth or Kimtech over the lens element with all it's special coatings.
Any piece of glass infront of lens will degrade the quality. Why do people buy expensive lenses when they have to put these silly gimmicks infron of it..
@@predatorishiMy experience is on par with the countless others that have stated it does not degrade their image quality. I have done countless comparisons in lightroom when I first got my UV filter. At all focal lengths on my lens I found absolutely no degradation even when pixel peeping. I think it truly matters the quality of the filter. Obviously there is gonna be some difference but if it isn't like what is shown in this video then there is no problem.
Not sure which UV filters you used, but there are better ones. I have a B+W UV-Haze MRC on my 100-500 and the shots come out tack sharp with good contrast - just like your No Filter examples. I'm a pixel peeper and would definitely notice otherwise! There definitely are low quality filters out there though. And honestly I could probably remove my filter and not worry about it. I always use the lens hood.
I also use B+W mrc uv filters and did several pixel peeping tests with my 5d3 raw files. Could not tell the difference. Perhaps the issue is more noticeable on higher resolution cameras?
I use the B+W MRC nano clear filters and do not notice a visible difference when pixel peeping on a Canon R5 with L lenses. Even the measurable difference in respect to image degradation according to the manufacturer is less than 5%. I would say this video is a little bit on the clickbaity side, hence it got a downvote from me. Hope the algorithms will do the right thing to prevent this from spreading further.
I had a bad experience with a Best Buy filter on my 300MM Olympus bought a B&W for about $200. CDN I think it's fine but you know I'm going to check it out again now.
Doesn’t matter, it’s basic science ur degrading the quality with those fancy so called glass. If can’t pass ur finger thru it .. ur wrong that it doesn’t impact the quality, it does and it can quantifiable, but some people can’t see it in some situations.
Same Filter on Sony A7R5 and all my GM lenses (6) and even after retesting there is ZERO loss in sharpness or color. It is just a level of security doing a lot of beach photography in salty and sandy conditions
If it is the glass of the UV filter that's degrading the image quality, what does that say about ND and CP filters and the possible degrading effects of their glass?
I think typically those filters, at least the high end ones are Ade with much better components and coatings, ensuring better IQ. Ido use CPL and CDs for video without much issue
if you are using a cheapy UV filter, that of course will degrade the image. But you are buy a high quality UV filter, you won't see a noticeable quality loss. A $20 UV filter vs a $65+ UV filter are not the same. You get what you paid for. I purchase UV filter for ALL of my lenses. My lens element looking like brand new when I remove the filter.
Thanks Jan, i cant replicate the degradation you showed with the filter but i think more importantly for me is considering the type of photography you do. I shoot ocean sports and pixel peeping is minimal, the salt impact on your lens and especially that you need to wipe, dry and clean every 15min, makes the UV filter a great sacrificial offering😉
Hi Jan do you use a polarising filter at all? Thanks.
Sometimes
I wonder if high pixel density / AA filter / tele lenses etc has something to do with it. I never noticed any difference with my FF L lenses, but have questioned the 'look' of my 70-200 on a higher Pix density crop body.
Regardless, I use Hoya multi coated (Pro HD?) filters. I carefully wipe them when I need to ( fogging / water droplets etc) but they still show small scratches over time. Rather the filter than my expensive lenses.
It depends on where you use it. If you use it for bird photography in a safe environment, sure. Try to use it during hiking in conditions where a tiny stone can pop and hit your lens. It should be evident to any dumdum that no UV-better, use your brain when you should need it.
This is why top filter makers, including B+W and HOYA make clear protective filters. UV filters were designed largely to solve a problem endemic to shooting film. A problem that doesn't exist with digital cameras, so it's not surprising that corrections never intended or useful for digital shooting would degrade digital images. But that problem of inappropriate "correction" doesn't exist with the top clear protective filters from the companies mentioned. The real problem is that UV filters have a useful purpose only for film shooting, yet many people don't knows this, and sellers too often will sell whatever people will buy. I'll that three times, I've dropped a camera with a Canon L lens on it, and each time, the filter cracked or shattered, but the lens was left completely unharmed. I've enjoyed and benefited from a good number of your videos, Jan, but you're leading people astray with this one. You rightly steer us away from UV filters, but the reasons for concern don't apply to the best clear protective filters.
I think there is a place and time for everything. If you're going to shoot in bad weather, dusty conditions, and you're not gonna earn to replace your gear faster than you can damage it: use UV filter. If you're going to a clean venue, no danger of liquids or dust to damage your lens, just use the lens-hood: it will protect from accidental bumps and improve image contrast in certain scenarios. You'll look more cool too.
Have to agree with you, but a lot of times, dust and other kinds of dirt are unavoidable, and the it's a tough choice to let the front objective to deal with those. If you keep cleaning the front element, eventually you can wear out the coatings. That happened to me once and I had to spend $650 + shipping one way to get the front element replaced. What are your thoughts on using a high quality clear filter? BTW, amazing bird photos - my compliments.
To really do this test you really need to do it against a static subject, in static lighting (or the same lighting at least). In doing so, in my experience, with some filters there isn't any discernable difference unless you get into peeping at the pixel level almost. The rason I say this needs to be done in a static test environment is that even slight movements of birds can give the appearance of a filter not performing well, but it could also be lighting and how light is hitting the feathers for example from one shot to the next. I am in agreement that people shoulid avoid UV filters when possible (although there are some good times you might want to consider using one -- for example if you're shooting a Holi Fest or something -- then the slight decrease in IQ -- if any -- may be greatly outweighed by the protection the UV filter can offer, but for normal shooting I don't usually advise people to use them). But again, a test on a static test chart in artificial lighting will be the best comparison (reduces the most variables).
People should realize that UV filters are not really necessarily a good thing for protection against damaging a lens. In some cases, it may prevent damage, in others it could cause damage. For example if you drop or bumpb your camera into something and the front of the lens comes in contact with something, a UV filter (or any filter realy) will either get scraped but not damage the lens, or in other cases the filter can break and damage the lens (and possibly cause MORE damage if it damages the front element -- I've seen times when people would have been better off NOT using a filter and nicking the front of the lens, versus a lens filter breaking and severely scratching the front of the lens). A lens hood is a better option as it doesn't impact optics, and can actually improve contrast in many cases, and acts as a bumper if you drop the lens or bumpb it against something -- and lens hoods are more expensive than some filters, but far cheaper than new lenses and front lens elements. So the happy middle ground for protectin would be a lens hood.
I didn’t just take one photo, but huge bursts of each scene.
And then picked representative images.
@@jan_wegener it does not matter. Your testing method is flawed. It is not controlled enough. It has to be done on a static subject under controlled lighting and tripod mounted with the camera shutter being fired remotely. Also why test a UV filter rather than a clear filter?
This adds variables and the opportunity for bias to what could have otherwise been a controlled experiment. I'm sure your findings are valid and repeatable, but (they're not proof and) I do wish there was more of the scientific method on TH-cam.
In a more controlled experiment, there was no difference in detail on the same focal plane between 3 UV filters and no-filter: th-cam.com/video/k_Z6zDBwt4c/w-d-xo.html
Certainly a filter has a 50-50 chance of doing more damage to the front lens element during a drop IF one were not using a lens hood. It’s an argument one hears all the time for avoiding use of a protective filter. However, it’s more likely the case that those who rely on a filter for protection will also in all likelihood be using a lens hood for that purpose. I fall into this latter camp and have never shattered a filter during nearly 4 decades of photography.
Does it make any difference with Clear/Protector filters?
I dont use uv filters.but i had to remove a damaged uv filter from a friends lens i had to use a dremmel tool to release the thread .i could not be sent away because the broken uv glass was nearly scratching the front element.
That would've been annoying if the filter actually ruined the element
For your test with the $100 filter, was it multi-coated? Also, are non-UV clear protective multi-coated filters any better?
I live in a humid climate and near the ocean, so I always thought a protective “filter” helped keep moisture and salt spray out of my lenses. I guess if us owners of expensive lenses are concerned about front element damage, we should opt for the insurance at time of purchase.
(1) is clear glass filter better than UV filter? (2) How do you clean the dust off of the front element if it is not protected by a filter? Thank you.
I don't know if this would apply to closer shots up close?
Hey Jan is This the same With protection filters or Pol filters beside Those filters is made to be put on when needed not to use all the time
It seems the clear filters perform a bit better and high end CPL will perform better again
Depends on the filter. I have a Hoya EVO Antistatic Protector filter on my RF 100-500 and R5. You can't see any difference, no matter how much you pixel peep. It's not a UV filter. However, if in doubt, leave the filter off.
That’s a great filter. The only downside I’ve found with my Hoya HD filters is they are not anti static.
You must be a UV filter salesman.
Yeah, too many people conclude on crap filters they didn't even spend much money on comparing to their lens. And no, expensive ones don't necessarily mean they are actually good. One should look at the data.
This should therefore also apply to the clear filters you get in the EF to RF adapters then?
If it's Canon made, it's different. Just like the clear place holder inside the big prime lenses.
What do you think about protectors made by the manufactures of the lens itself?
Is it the same with put-in filters on your 600 mm? Do you use your 600 without that filter or with it?
No, those filters are part of the lens design. I don’t touch them
Hello Jan, how are you today? I am having troubles with some of the steps of the editing course, Around the minute 56, you tell us to "load the selection" into a New Layer.... I can't figure out how to do so, can you help me out? Thanks a lot, and best wishes from Uruguay.
You can send me an email. I think you are referring to me to save the selection. So once I have the selection made. I create a new layer and then go to Edit - Fill - Black. Once that is done I untick the little eye icon next to the layer, so it's hidden. If you now left click and hold down the command/control key it will load your selection .
@@jan_wegener Thank you Jan, I will try this, and if I can't figure it out, I'll bother you with an email :)
So, what about the UV filter do you suppose causes the deterioration of image quality, the coating? I always use Nikon's NC (Neutral Color) filter on my lenses thinking it will keep dust from getting in my lens. Maybe I should experiment with and without.
What about circular polarizers. Should you use them and will they help or hinder.
They are good if you are dealing with reflections mainly
Great video! Have you tried canon protect filters? They seem to work good (not uv filters at all though)
My filter saved my lens when i slipped on ise at night, there were absolutely no sese to use it for the things i was shooting, plus redusung and adding flares in such an environment, but i never take filters of some of my lenses exactly for situations like that, and is so much easier to clean filter in rainy/snowy weather, than smearing water and dust over lens coatings
Merry Christmas And Happy New Year, Great Technique, i'm here at 25/12/2024 Thanks alot Mr Jan
the question is what kind of brand UV filter are used ?
in my case using B+W i dont find any degradation
what the sample look at the pictures it looks like using cheap UV filter
OK if I do not use a filter, in time there will be dust and dried water splashes, finger marks, etc on the front element. How do you recommend cleaning the front element to avoid cleaning marks, etc.? Thank you.
I don’t use one and never really have that issue. If I have to clean it I usually wipe it down with a micro fiver cloth
Never, ever had I experienced a loss of detail or resolution with uv filters. Did you buy them on temu?
Super helpful thank you. Do you think that the clear protective covers degrade images just as much as the UV filters? I purchased a bunch of B + W Clear Protection Filters, should have watched this vid before dropping all that cash on them haha
I put on a uv filter right after getting a new expensive 150-600 lens, then i saw the images were absolutely garbage, took off the uv filter, store replaced it with a better one but i didn't put it back on, used the lens for half a year. I somehow managed to scratch it while never using it outdoors without the hood and only using a cleaning cloth i have at home (where i kept it inside glasses carrying case and washed my hands before using it), and having the cap on when not using it, luckily it's on the very edge so likely only an issue unless i shoot without the hood and sun shines on the front element, but i'd rather have a tiny hit in quality than having the quality degrade over time from micro damage accumulation.
Wondering what you think about applying this aspect to other filters such as polarizing, ND,etc. that are often touted for landscapes where sharpness is also considered as critical. If anything added to the lens compromises the image then trade offs would have to be consideration. What do you think?
I think high end ND/rads and CPL are made with better coatings and better glass and do not affect I the same. I use some of them for video ( Polar pro) and they are fine
A polariser cannot be emulated in post. If you want to see through water or avoid reflected objects from a shiny object like a car, or windows on a building the polarizer is your best option. If I'm taking pictures of an exotic car for a client, the last thing they want to see is my ugly head embossed on a photo of their pride and joy.
@@tdunster2011 well said
What a great and true comment. All filters must then degrade images lol.
I've done a test with static subject, using a good quality Hoya filter and the result is not as bad as in the video. Yes, there is a slight difference in sharpness, but almost negligible. I wonder if the resolution of the sensor plays a role in this? Can it be that in a low megapixel camera (like 40mp)? interesting video anyway, it would be interesting to see one more video where other high quality filters are tested :)
You should try one of those protectors from Japanese manufacturers, somehow they aren't sold outside. They have got 0.1% reflection and I have not seen any noticible difference on any of my lens, including 70200GM2 and 50.4 GM.
Which model and brand uv filter were used here?
3 different ones
@@jan_wegener cant you just say which ones lmfao
awesome content! you made me so much relaxed by explaining how to protect the lenses...
Hoya HD nano UV or Urth magnetic Plus+ UV do not degrade the image. But they are not cheap. Ken Rockwell is a user. Sure, avoid cheap or unbranded gear.
What about a Polarizer when trying to get the sky colours in the background?
Diffrent story at least with good quality ones and you don’t leave these on all the time
In my own testing, difference was very minimal and noticable only at deep pixel peeping. Image viewed as a whole or even partially cropped are absolutely identical. Basically close enough that I personally don't care :)
I droped 70-300 is usm mark 1 on the concrete from 1,5m with the lens hood on no damage to the lens even the hood is alright and this crapy lens is not made to last so totally no need for uv filters lenses are quite hard to destroy
Nice
I know it’s not super beneficial to have one in situations it’s not required like in dry environments. But I assume it would be helpful in salty and misty environments like the beach right? So would it be good to use a high quality, high-transmission multi coated uv filter in these salty environments? Would the good quality uv filter still be worth considering?
I have a HD filter on my Canon rf 100 500, is this also a no go
Best way to know is to do a test with and without it. I would expect to see a difference
@@jan_wegener no difference noticed
Great video but what about the B&W XS Pro Clear filters for protection only ?
Clear filters seem to perform a bit better going by the comments here
Hi Jan , i have an old EF 500mm L MK1 lens and this has a clear filter built in at the back of the lease , although the pictures are excellent , should i remove this filter from its cradle ,or remove it altogether and seal the opening in which it is located .ps. i think your videos are well presented and very informative and are always about up-to-date camera models . However a lot of photographers cannot afford the latest kit . I still use 2 - 7dmkII ,and still enjoy their versatility . Could you consider doing a video on older models and their relevance and quality fo use along side the modern mirrorless cameras , i think that a lot of people would be very interested as many still use DSLR bodies .Thanks Jan
Craig Steele -From UK.
No, the built in place holder filters from Canon are fine. All big primes have them
OK Thanks for the reply Jan, really enjoy your videos along with your mate Duade ,
Hi Jan, thanks for this reminding info. I tried a UV filteron my 150-600mm Tam G2 lens a UV filter. After some 50 shots, I noticed in my computer strange diminishing of IQ.. After this experience, that lens does not hold any filters (hood - yes). Recently I noiced in forum that somebody recommended to use a NC- neutral clear filter instead of UV. Have not tried, and will not test with involved dollars to buy and learn...by error. So, my question is do you / or anybody here, have any experience with a NC filter? Thanks
I have never used a neutral clear filter. In theory it might be better quality
Is there such a thing as a good shot of a Bin Chicken (White Ibis)! Jan, I removed my UV filter after you mentioned it at the Gold Coast conference. I could notice the difference straight away. Might be my imagination but on the Sony a7iv with the 100-400 GM I think the AF fixed and stuck quicker. Maybe that was because of others tips I picked up at the conference.
They may affect AF as well, but not always easy to tell. I am trying to get some nice bun chicken shots 😀
I shoot using the filter... I damaged my Sony 35gm while shooting ...got really close to a cold pyro and the front glass got a small hole it melted
What about protector filter like Hoya HD Protector?
Same thing
They are very good, but don’t buy online or you may very well get a fake.
It's easier to sell used lenses with zero hairline or fine scratches on the front element.
I personally use high quality UV and/or clear filters and have not seen any perceptable image degradation even when pixel peeping. The only instance I observed image degradation is when I used a low quality CPL.
What are the brands and models of these filters? I used many filters and sometimes I noticed shocking deterioration on IQ. But with Hoya (0) filters I never noticed any deterioration and they are actually relatively cheap. I use my gear often in adverse condition and frankly speaking I am scared to leave my fron element exposed. Lens hood will not help you if a grain of sand stays on your lens and you won't notice that when cleaning the front element. But I will try to make a side by side test to check what is the influence of my filters on the image quality.
Yes, best you can do is to test it yourself with your gear
I have always used filters on all of my lenses, now that I have seen your video I don't believe I will use them any longer. Then I saw another video and the man said that each time you have to clean your lens eventually you will ruin it and it will develop a film over time what is your opinion on that.
I use Hoya EXO and B+W MRC filters. There might be some image degradation but I can't tell. My lenses always cost at least a thousand dollars so I always put a front element protection. I have discovered some specks of dust actually will leave a residue onto the front element so I'd prefer not to ever deal with the annoying cleaning issues by protecting the expensive front elements at the outset.
interesting at 2:30min as i saw the first comparison. so for my cam the UV filter makes absolute zero difference.
Are you saying yours look always like the right one? ;)
@@jan_wegener no i tested it because i wanted to know. filter off or on. both images are same sharp. but here is the thing. i am using a macro front lens adapter which doesnt fit on the cam lens. if i put the UV filter on it gives me a bit of extra thread to screw the macro lens on. i am using it sometimes and photos are super sharp as well. but seeing your shocking results i will test that these days again. cheers mate°
@@cloudpandarism2627 I'm sure there could be some particular UV filters that may not cause visible image degradation, but my guess would be even the same brand UV filter might not have perfect quality control and they all might not be equal. It's even more of a problem with so many different brands to choose from, I still think the best advice would be to completely avoid them.
@@KurtisPape by all means the filter i got is mediocre at best. not the cheapest but definitely not the most expensive. that being said i also dont own a 3000$ body with a 20k $ telelens. i cant get a lens hood as well for my cam. and even i do. the process of quickly screw the macro on would be alot more annoying. anyway. i will test it again these days. throw it on tripod, then take photo with UV on. and then without. at different zoom level and distances. lets see what happens. i will answer here again and share my results.
I tested mine in the past and there was almost no loss of image quality at all. Could only see a very very slight loss at extremely high magnification. That’s on a 36 megapixel body and pro lenses. I will test again tomorrow to reacquaint myself with the results. Hoya HD protection filters purchased from a store to make sure they’re not fakes.
I have been using UV filters "quality ones" on all my lenses for over a decade. Never saw any image degradation.
Great video! I’m so happy to see that you’re doing better!
Thank you so much!
7:40 Not only can I testify to that, my lens is pretty scratched up, but so I'd to even the sensor in my camera, and it's has numerous scratches all over it yet I hardly ever see it when taking photos unless I stop down past F11
Valid points Jan but having a filter on the front of my RF24-105 when shooting on a beach saved my lens when the tripod got knocked over and took the brunt of the impact. As I shoot landscapes primarily I tend to have a CPL on most of the time and do occasionally just shoot with nothing on the front but am always nervous as in the heat of the moment accidents can happen. It's down to each person to weigh up the pros/cons for them but better make sure you have good camera insurance...esp if you don't have a filter and/or lend hood on the lens.
Just had a repair of 560 euro because I damaged the front element of my Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L USM II in the field. After the repair I bought a pair of B&W MRC UV filters to protect my lenses. Did some testing but could not find any issues.
I use a UV filter to protect the lens on my tired old camera. The images I get from it look beautiful to me because I don't examine them at the atomic level.
I stopped using UV about 10 years back as I noticed huge degradation (possibly a fake), but I replaced with high end protector filters. More recently I when I bought new lenses I didn't bother with any filter. I note you focused on UV filters - any thought on protectors instead?
They may be a bit better, but I would expect to see some issues still. Best way to find out is to do a test yourself
Jan - I expect that you have to use ND filters on your lenses for your videos exposed in bright light. I have mine in magnetic filter adapters for quick on-off as I switch from video to stills. I have never used UV filters, but I have used hi-end specially coated easy clean Clear ones (usually B&W) on my smaller lenses with shallow lens hoods. I don’t use a protective filter on my long telephoto lenses with deep lens hoods.
Yes for videos I use ND filters, but when I use big lenses I sometimes have to use the shutter speed to compensate.
Wait... people do not have lens caps on their lenses?
I just tested my Polar Pro UV filter and I can’t notice any difference in sharpness or color shift, and no haze. When looking at the histogram, there’s a very slight color shift almost negligible.
Might be one of the better ones out there
But, what quality UV filter was tested here?
One thing: You should have tested with and without the UV filter but WITH the lens hood on the lens. The UV filter without the lens hood extends far forward and catches more unwanted light.
If people are spending $100 per lens for a “protective” filter they should look into the cost of insurance. My guess is that will be MUCH cheaper and cover more than just the front element including theft which is a much more likely event! And I’m pretty sure insurance has no impact on image quality 😊
Not a bad tip!
Not really £100 would barely pay the excess and I do have insurance also the pain of being with out lens for a few months
I don’t think this needs to become a big insurance debate. Obviously these things would vary greatly by region. But I’m seeing premiums of $50/year to cover $15,000 of equipment. There should also be options to add riders to home owner policies that could be even cheaper. And thats more than just front elements but bodies too. And if settling a claim takes months you need to seek another carrier.
Hi Jan! my two cents... for protection (at least for those who lives in tropical countries like me) I strongly suggest a DRY CABINET for your lens. I got a ruggard 18l for $130 it fits my r7 with 100-500rf attached.
Yes, I'll need to get some of those at some stage
An interesting video and I was surprised at the results. I always use a lens hood and the lens cap. This video relates to a UV filter but I assume the same goes for a clear protect filter.
Would this still apply on beach photos where there is lens spray which can get onto the front element.
I never use filters. A clear one may be slightly better, but I would suspect it to still have an effect.
I stopped using them after I had blurry issues with a Hoya one on the ef100-400
But I’m kicking myself as on my 1st shoot down the local canal shooting kingfishers a motorcycle came down the towpath at speed I kept myself between the camera and the motorbike but wasn’t till the day after when uploading firmware I noticed 2 tiny pinhead size spots of mud that had dried on the front lens well I got my cleaning gear out sprayed the new cloth lightly wipes the 2 spots off and shocked I now have 2 scratches on the front glass I’ve never had this issue with any other L glass and so after speaking to my insurance they wonder if there are faults or issues with the lens coatings or something so I’m going to send it off to canon for them to check out and see where I go from there but after how weak the RF lenses seam to be I’ll be keeping a filter on from now on it’s crazy as my old ef 600 f4 and ef 500 f4 there like over 20 years old and are now in better nick than this brand new rf 100-500 shocking
Hi Jan. Very interesting (and surprising) video on your UV filter experience! As a sharpness "fanatic" myself, I don't use any filters when doing product photography in studio. However, in my testing of expensive B+W and Hoya UV and/or Clear filters, I've found that only at around 400% magnification can I detect even a very slight negative impact on sharpness when using a filter...At normal magnifications or small print sizes, I can not really tell a difference in detail rendition. That said, I am considering the Nikon 95mm NC Neutral Clear Filter for the upcoming NIkkor Z 180-600 f/5.6-6.3...Reason being that Nikon makes their own glass, and I doubt they would make a less than optimum quality filter for that very nice and sharp lens, correct? Happy Labor Day sir!
Same here using only B+W UV-Haze MRC on all of my my GM lenses (6) on a 60MP Sony A7RV and even after retesting there is ZERO loss in sharpness or color. It is just a level of security doing a lot of beach photography in salty and sandy conditions.
Great video - really striking differences being shown in your examples. I think it is hard to generalize on this subject. In my experience I have found the RF 100-500 to be very susceptible to lower quality filters. I rented the lens before I bought it and got terrible results the first day out. Someone suggested I take the filter off and the second day out I got fantastic results. Since buying that lens I have done comparisons with it bare and with a top quality clear glass filter from B&H and I can discern no difference. I have shot my 24-105 and 14-35 L lenses both ways as well and cannot see any differences when using high quality filters from Breakthrough Photography, Maven, B&H or Hoya. So I think the level of degradation is not only filter dependent but lens dependent as well. That being said, I do somewhat trend towards removing the filter entirely in cases where it seems safe to do so. I would be interested if you tried this test on another lens, maybe not super tele...
Can you do a filter and no filter comparison with the Helix MagLock UV Filter please
The loss of detail is so extreme, it makes me wonder if it is affecting the AF performance of the camera, so the camera is not focusing as well as it should, with the filter on.
AF seemed a bit more jumpy with the filter
@@jan_wegener Both issues would explain those terrible results with the filter on.
What about clear filters? Photographing seascapes can be a pain without those since salt will be on your front element and may corrode coatings.
From what people said in the comments here they seem to work a bit better
One reason i need one is canon actually says my 16-36 f4 is not water and dust resistant until you put on a filter
where does it say that?
@@jan_wegener I meant to say the 16-35 not 36 but on page 12 bullet point 8 it says to ensure dust and water resistance performance attach a canon protect filter, not sure how to post a pic in comments, guess you cant. I have no idea on all lens thats just my current lens im using at the moment. Thanks
@@jan_wegener also enjoy your videos keep it up
@@jan_wegener see if this works. I dont use a filter often just when I think its gonna be bad dust or rain. gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/4/0300015544/01/ef16-35f4lisusm-im-eng.pdf
I think a CPL filter is much more useful while also serving as protection. Although I can tell a difference in sharpness if I zoom into an image when making a comparison & always wonder if it makes a difference when looking at an image as a whole
What I find with uv, and nd filters, when I use them focusing jumps out of focus very often and when I just use the lens alone it’s normal , I shoot motorsport so when the same car comes back around same speed same racing line , that’s how I figure out what’s going on. Also the with no uv filter somehow I get better contrast out of camera and I also notice that the different uv filters when I hold it and look at it each uv filter coating shows different colors , also I used a few uv that actually made pics more warm in direct sunlight but when off totally different. I stop using filters unless I’m using a tripod and subject is in one spot.
The Laowa 100mm X2 Macro lense i bought last year ,,, had 2 UV[0] Filters 67mm Hoya and a Laowa UV Filter , I took them off ...never put them back on since .
Though have been tempted to buy some filters for LE's whilst down at the Beach etc haven't even got round to it yet ..
Nice video, but you don't really show any pictures that have bad UV/IR pollution. I know this is more for stills, but I shoot on video on Blackmagic cameras (P4k, S4KPro) and they suffer from bad UV/IR pollution at the best of times. Its a nightmare to try and correct in colour grading.
I think what would be great is if you showed what happens when you actually get UV/IR pollution VS not, then do a comparison from there, there is always pro's and con's and trade off to any situation when shooting, horses for course so to speak.
Also have you ever shoot with a ND filter/VND filter and then looked at the increased UV/IR pollution?
Do yo ever use CPL filter? I’m going to take your advice and remove the UV filters.
I do and the good ones don’t have much impact
I do and the good ones don’t have much impact
@@jan_wegener
So for Bird photography you wouldn’t recommend using a CPL filter?
@@BradHumphreys-zb3fi only if there was a reason like reflections you want to eliminate
Nice comparisons! I took my UV filter off quite a while ago because I also noticed some difference but I had been considering putting one back on because I wasn't sure how much difference the quality of a filter makes. I appreciate an advise that for once will not leave me wanting to buy new things :). Still I had a little nick on my 100-400 II lens which I also used without a filter which made the sale of it a little harder but taking less than optimal pictures every day in attempt to prevent this seems not like a good trade.
just use clear filters like the Nikon Arcrest, you will get no degradation on your images. UV filters are usually crap
Hi Jan. I didnt noticed such degradation of image quality when using UV on my 100500L but will check this once again. I noticed on my 2870mm f2 problems with the right focucusing on certains focals like 50mm and 70mm on the wide aperture. I was getting ghosting on the photos but since I removed it is great. On Sigma 105A or 85A no loss in quality. They are sharp at f1.4. Adding glass to this combo like ef-rf adapter with builtin Nd filter changed it. My thoughts are that dependent on the lens built, prime/zoom You can use certain extra glass without changing a lot of quality.
IMO, the price of the filter does not indicate quality. You need to say what the filters actually are. I use Sony Zeiss MPAM filters, and there is very little degradation.
I have been kicked in the lens element during a break dancing competition, and I am glad I had a protector on there.
I live in the desert so all my lenses have the clear filter. I don’t think it helps with a fall but it is intended to help with dust and moisture. I still use a lens hood as well.
I recently did some tests with my tele lenses in a controlled environment, mainly to compare them and find the best aperture. I also did tests with and without (rather cheap) filter. The differences were marginal. With enough pixel peeping you could find some difference, but really little. There are other YT videos with similar results.
It also depends on the kind of photography. With big lenses with lens hoods which go wide in front of the lens and a setup which is so big that you carry it mostly with both hands, there is not much of a risk. The other side of the spectrum is a lighter setup bouncing on the belt with a wide angle lens. Or when it is used in narrow environments. The lens hood sticks barely out of the front lens and will protect it only in very special events.
I have several UV-filters which did their job i.e. they got scratches or even broke but they protected the lens. When I'm on vacation and a filter is scratched or broken I can shoot without it or easily get a new one. If the lens is scratched that is much more complicated and expensive and might even render the lens a complete loss leaving me without that lens for the remaining time.
I still might take the filter away if I'm in a controlled situation and I try for the best results, but in general usage I prefer safety over the last edge of quality.
With vintage lenses modern uv filters actually makes the lenses slightly a specielly with reflections and contrast.
Hi Jan
Good to have you back.
Last video made me think. I have several friends who swear that primes provide better quality than zooms. Not sure that’s proven but could it be that what they are seeing is that the use of filters with zooms is degrading the images?
Bob
I recently got a UV filter (on a EF 24-105 f/4L) to reduce reflections when taking picture of birds on the water. It was annoyingly expensive, but does effectively reduce glare from oblique lighting. I found, however, that the auto-focus on my old SL1 was severely impacted by the filter -- it would hunt like crazy, and would miss the desired focal plane. Now I only use it for very specialized shooting circumstances, where I anticipate glare or want to get a cool polarizing effect -- not really worth the $, but not a terrible investment if I use it just when needed and not all the time!