Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does adding protective glass or Polarized filter causes loss in Picture Quality?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 trcns

trcns

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 25 January 2017 - 02:58 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

Does adding protective glass or Polarized filter in front of lens causes loss in Picture Quality? I just purchased 55mm f1.8 and 24-27 f2.8 gm, should I use lens protective filter or Polarized filter in front of them?  If yes, which are the best?



#2 alasdairmac

alasdairmac

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 04:20 PM

I would not use a so-called protective filter in front of my lens. It will only detract from your picture quality. Your lens hood provides more that adequate protection for the front lens when it's fitted. A polarising filter should only be used when optically required.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#3 pfitskie

pfitskie

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 06:08 PM

......... causes loss in Picture Quality? .........

 

 

Yes it will, but in such amount that no-one will notice it.-_-


  • GeirJ likes this

#4 markphoto4u

markphoto4u

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 05:58 AM

The benefits of a protective UV filter far out weigh the loss in image quality. If you don't believe me do the tests yourself. In the meantime get a filter on that expensive lens to keep it clean. Cleaning a lens over time -- no matter how careful you are -- will take its toll on your lens. Tiffen makes an excellent quality lens for a great price; so does Hoya. If you buy a CP just make sure it is a good quality brand. Again, it will be a simple test to take a shot with and without the CP. Many good landscape photographers use CPs to bring out the greens and reduce unwanted reflections. It is difficult to get a similar result in Photoshop or Lightroom. IMHO a UV should be on every lens. Also, a good CP, ND or two, and one or two split NDs are important tools for a landscape photographer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • 32groove and aporodagon01 like this

#5 Steve C

Steve C

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 10:47 AM

I do,you cannot guarantee against accidents and a filter is cheaper and easier to replace than a front element.
I'd add B & W to the choice mixture.

#6 christer

christer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 11:47 AM

I do,you cannot guarantee against accidents and a filter is cheaper and easier to replace than a front element.
I'd add B & W to the choice mixture.

 

 

Modern lenses are not made the way lenses used to be made. Changing just the front element is often impossible because many lens elements are "glued" together.

 

You may find this interesting;

 

https://www.lensrent...tion-revisited/

.



#7 tinplater

tinplater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 02:51 PM

Ipurchased a used Canon 300mm F4 lens with an included UV filter and was disappointed in image sharpness.I took a series of tripod mounted images with and without the filter and was amazed at the clarity difference.This was a quality B&W filter!The loss of quality may be different for different lenses where the filter distance from lens glass may vary.This is the only lens that I could demonstrate a lack of quality of image with a filter.As for protection, the best protection for your lens, IMO, is a rubber collapsable hood.It is like having a flexible shock absorber on the lens.



#8 LiveShots

LiveShots

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 03:18 PM

I have Zeiss T* UV filters on my lenses including my new 70-200 F2.8… I often take shots in dusty or wet locations, the lens hood does not protect the glass from either of these.



#9 timde

timde

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 876 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 05:11 PM

Does adding protective glass or Polarized filter in front of lens causes loss in Picture Quality? I just purchased 55mm f1.8 and 24-27 f2.8 gm, should I use lens protective filter or Polarized filter in front of them?  If yes, which are the best?

 

 

If you can afford an A7rII, and a GM lens, then you can afford a filter ... select an expensive one from Amazon, with a good rating. Get a polarizer too, why not. I personally have more filters than lenses ...

 

Now, with the filter fitted, and you find the images don't seem to have the correct Picture Quality, then remove the filter. Problem solved.



#10 Username

Username

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 28 January 2017 - 02:39 AM

Yes it will, but in such amount that no-one will notice it.-_-

  

Well .... no one who actually matters anyway. 

It is true that a few peepers can see a difference.  

They were put on earth accidentally. Ignore them.   

  

If you wanna give yourself an edge against some 

peepers inspecting your pixels, use top a quality 

UV filters and if you are NOT using an SLT type of 

Sony [A-mount body] avoid the  circular polarizers. 

They have more layers in their construction than a 

linear polarizer, which is the appropriate polarizer  

for any camera with no mirror in it [non-SLT Sony].


  • Zé De Boni likes this

#11 Username

Username

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 28 January 2017 - 02:55 AM

Ipurchased a used Canon 300mm F4 lens with an included UV

filter and was disappointed in image sharpness.I took a series

of tripod mounted images with and without the filter and was

amazed at the clarity difference.This was a quality B&W filter!

 ........

 

Faith in such a test demands that you bracket focus 

both with and without the filter. And, acoarst, never 

trust the AF nor the SLR mirror .... IOW, you always  

focus manually by magnified live view, which IS how

you performed your tests, right ?  

 

Sometimes a filter will cause a focus shift, but it can

still be fully sharp when properly focused. And with 

some lenses, just adding or removing the filter can 

slightly move the focusing mechanism even tho the 

glass of the filter is not by itself causing a focus shift.  

 

At any rate I'd get rid of that filter. It's not as good as 

you're believing its brand name quality ought to be. 


  • aporodagon01 likes this

#12 JCC

JCC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 28 January 2017 - 04:21 AM

I shoot in very hostile environments(mosh pit), beer, sparks, glitter, fake blood, you name it.  

 

A filter has saved me from replacing a front element several times.


www.johnchristou.com


#13 tinplater

tinplater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 28 January 2017 - 04:05 PM

"Faith in such a test demands that you bracket focus 

both with and without the filter. "

 

Disagree...the test was done the way I shoot.Regardless of bracketing, the images with the filter were consistently less sharp than without.That was enough for me.99% of what I shoot is with autofocus and I have no interest in bracket exposing simply to accommodate a filter that degrades image quality.The reason I did the comparison in the first place was because the first images I took were very disappointing and I thought I had a bad copy of the lens.I did not, however, try a different filter to see if the problem was specific to that filter. 



#14 GeirJ

GeirJ

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 09:05 AM

A few years ago I accidentally scratched the front element of a lens when I put the lens cap on. The scratch does not affect IQ, but it reduced the second hand value of the lens to zero. Since then I use protection filters on all my lenses most of the time, especially the 24-70 which is on my camera most of the time. I noticed one strange thing about filters, though. I did som testing of the autofocus of the a-mount 70-400mm GII on my A7II with the LA-EA3 adapter and found that removing the UV filter improved autofocus.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#15 Username

Username

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 05:54 PM

`

`

 

IGNORE THIS



#16 Username

Username

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 06:28 PM

 

`

 

.... and this. Double oops :-( 



#17 Username

Username

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 06:34 PM

 

"Faith in such a test demands that you bracket focus 

both with and without the filter. "

 

Disagree...the test was done the way I shoot.Regardless of bracketing, the

images with the filter were consistently less sharp than without.That was

enough for me. .....................I did not, however, try a different filter to see if

the problem was specific to that filter. 

 

  

Even those of us very in favor of filters acknowledge that many filters 
produce a detectable-by-critical-test IQ loss, yet find the small loss 
from excellent quality filters to be negligible. Clearly, you encountered 
a filter so "brutal" on your IQ that really critical testing wasn't required :-( 
  
Since you encountered a gross enuf loss that really careful test wasn't
even needed to declare the filter a major loser, SOMETHING is amiss 
here. Maybe the filter, maybe something else, but you seem to describe 
a degree of loss that even us "filter lovers" would find objectionable, for
sure !  In such sorry instances one simply rejects that filter in favor of a
decent one. IOW it's hardly any sort of generally applicable finding. 
 
Being a hard core supporter of filter use, I myself have occasionally had 
to junk a filter that came with a used lens. A filter CAN be obviously too 
lossy to keep. But that does not create a global rule on which to advise 
against filters in general.  
 
#####################################################   
 
On a completely different track ... lens hoods ? I have many hoods in use 
cuz I have many ancient lenses. The design and coating of my quite few 
modern lenses has, in my careful testing of my own PARTICULAR modern 
examples, caused me to park their bulky fancy dedicated lens hoods in my
junk drawer .... NOT cuz the hoods were badly or incorrectly designed but 
cuz the lenses were so well designed and coated that the hoods proved to 
be absolutely redundant and unnecessary. While this is rather welcome 
news, in that my gear is less bulky without the hoods attached, it's not like 
I'm comfortable leaving 77mm front glass completely unprotected. I could  
choose either the hood or a filter for protection. The hoods stay at home !


#18 tinplater

tinplater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 29 January 2017 - 08:57 PM

@username:

Again, the distance between the two glass surfaces (front element and filter) may actually be a factor in image quality loss.As for lens hoods, I keep them for when I resell the lens to make it complete (with box and caps too). HOWEVER, all of my lenses have a rubber collapsablehood in place because it provides significant protection against the bumps, scrapes, and other trauma that a lens may sustain in its travles.Most of my lenses also have a filter in place too.But not the 300mm IS Canon F4.I just use the old, clumsy lens cap.



#19 K2Kevin

K2Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 02:40 PM

I have seen reflections and other image issues using UV filters, some filters are better then others, but can produce lens flare when shooting into light.  Its good to have when shooting on beaches and other areas where the extra protection is warranted.  Blowing sand and salt spray can hurt that front element.


  • 32groove likes this

#20 trcns

trcns

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 01 February 2017 - 07:19 PM

Okay, I loved every one's feed back. Thanks all. And based on comments, I will buy a filters. Now what should I buy? I have F55mm f1.8 Lens and I have 24-70 2.8 GM. Which should have UV filter and which have polarized. What kind Circular or Linear and finally which brand is best?

 

I am sorry, this is the first DSLR I ever bought so I don't know much about lenses. 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

 
x

New Members Welcome!

Not yet registered? Really?

Registration is free and takes only a few minutes.

After the free registration you can discuss with members from all over the world, put questions and present your images.

We are looking forward to you!

Admin Andreas und Sony Alpha Forum Team

Register now! X