No video
Don't Make THIS MISTAKE! | Here's why UV Filters hurt more than they help!
Рет қаралды 63,667
Күн бұрынScared of ruining your front element? Using a UV Filter to protect your lens & expect better photos? Let me show you in this video with real world examples why you might want to rethink that approach.
You will never look at UV filters the same way again!
___________________________________________
MASTERCLASS - Editing Your Bird Images To Perfection
👉 aviscapes.com/...
____________________________________________
Check out our PROSETS here and save up to 30%!
👉 thebirdphotogr...
_____________________________________________
MASTERCLASS & PERCHED BUNDLE - 25% off!
👉 aviscapes.com/...
_____________________________________________
How to Attract Amazing Birds Ebook & Video Perched
👉 aviscapes.com/...
_____________________________________________
R7 RAW File Download & Set Up Guide
👉 thebirdphotogra...
_____________________________________________
My Twitter
👉 / jan_wegener_
_____________________________________________
Instagram
👉 / jan_wegener_
_____________________________________________
Bird Photography Helpers:
DXO Pure RAW - Free Trial-
tidd.ly/3HsjB6M
tidd.ly/3uOpwhl
Topaz DeNoise AI - topazlabs.com/...
Flex Shooter Pro Head
👉 www.ballhead.e...
This is the Equipment I recommend:
Canon EOS R5 amzn.to/2FV1Fpq
Canon EOS R6 amzn.to/3qOtEbQ
Nikon Z9 amzn.to/3GeMscb
Sony Alpha 1 amzn.to/2WsXKYZ
Canon RF 100-500 L IS amzn.to/3liEIx0
RF Extender 1.4x amzn.to/3bMD5nO
RF Extender 2x amzn.to/3cuMdwD
Sony FE 200-600 amzn.to/3faCMVj
Sony 1.4x TC amzn.to/2WsXMA5
RF 800 F11 amzn.to/3ldq6Pr
RF600 F11 amzn.to/3bIBrDJ
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV amzn.to/2ToffWf
Canon 600 L IS III (I have v. II) amzn.to/3dZM7wn
Canon EF 5.6/400 L amzn.to/2AJwbQk
Canon 1.4x TC III amzn.to/2T7vAhz
Canon 2x TC III amzn.to/3fPnYdr
Canon 600 EX - RT amzn.to/3czhDRf
Wimberley Head II amzn.to/3dOuqzI
Gitzo 5543LS (new version of my tripod) amzn.to/3dRfxg3
Gitzo GT2545T Travel Tripod amzn.to/3BSmhXJ
Wimberley Flash Bracket amzn.to/2LweMg5
Wimberley M-6 Extension Post amzn.to/2LxCvfQ
Better Beamer (check for compatibility) amzn.to/2AxbbfF
Flash Battery (Godox & Flashpoint is the same) amzn.to/3fNDWVD
Power Cord amzn.to/3cBJGzt
Y connector amzn.to/2X22zoT
Novoflex STA-SET amzn.to/2y5s1Bt
LensCoat LensHide amzn.to/3bAkoAo
LensCoat Lens Hoodie amzn.to/3fStHiI
Canon 2.8/70-200 II amzn.to/3cArBSB
Canon 4/24-70 amzn.to/2AwjeJE
Canon 4/16-35 L IS amzn.to/3fPqPDb
JBL Clip3 Speaker amzn.to/36225D5
Sandisk Extreme Pro CFexpress Card type B 512GB amzn.to/38FPKHg
Sandisk Extreme Pro amzn.to/2WXKt7n
Panasonic Eneloop Pro amzn.to/2X2SQ1q
Minox 8x43 amzn.to/2Z7YxxQ
Canon LP-E6N amzn.to/3byTSYg
Manfrotto Mini Ballhead amzn.to/3dR2pYm
FStop Gear Sukha Backpack amzn.to/2Q3e4fZ
Atomos Ninja V amzn.to/3GYFV5v
LINKS USED IN THE DESCRIPTION MAY OR MAY NOT BE AFFILIATE LINKS
By using the affiliate links I earn a small commission on your purchase, it does not cost you anything extra to use them. It helps me to create more content for you. Thank you for the support!
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Say no !
0:41 The truth
1:18 Shoot off!
1:55 Sample images
4:48 Don't be scared!
5:21 Front Element Cost
5:34 How can we protect our lenses instead?
7:17 Don't worry
@craigpiferphotography Жыл бұрын
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.
@JaySilva88 5 ай бұрын
That camera went on to ebay: "good as new, always used with a filter!"
@sew_gal7340 5 ай бұрын
If you are clumsy than yes buy a filter, if you are careful you don't need one.
@vitaminb4869 3 ай бұрын
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.
@yustdream0204 3 ай бұрын
nice story
@richarddare3593 10 күн бұрын
@@sew_gal7340 Exactly. That's why I never carry auto insurance, because I am a careful driver.
@jarod72pm Жыл бұрын
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 !
@cmalc8 8 ай бұрын
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.
@tonigenes5816 Жыл бұрын
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.
@chrishansen2586 3 ай бұрын
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.
@rrijnders Жыл бұрын
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.
@predatorishi Жыл бұрын
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..
@tylerangle2269 11 ай бұрын
@@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.
@tgautier Жыл бұрын
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).
@fragu123 Жыл бұрын
…same here, usage of B+W clear filters and the results look just fine…
@gabririn7266 Жыл бұрын
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
@lukasholecek5911 Жыл бұрын
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...
@predatorishi Жыл бұрын
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 💩
@roncruise4 10 ай бұрын
Thank you. Makes perfect sense. I'd rather wipe down the filter than the lens itself.
@MichaelFogleman Жыл бұрын
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.
@jhellier Жыл бұрын
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?
@OfficialSushiSystemAmbassador Жыл бұрын
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.
@bellasvistas3463 Жыл бұрын
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.
@predatorishi Жыл бұрын
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.
@pixonoid 9 ай бұрын
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
@HR-wd6cw Жыл бұрын
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 Жыл бұрын
I didn’t just take one photo, but huge bursts of each scene. And then picked representative images.
@stuartallenphotos 8 ай бұрын
@@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?
@no_categories 2 ай бұрын
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 KZfaq.
@RetrieverTrainingAlone 11 күн бұрын
In a more controlled experiment, there was no difference in detail on the same focal plane between 3 UV filters and no-filter: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ocWKad11p93YZJc.html
@xophaser 9 сағат бұрын
Started with filters, but the last few years stopped. I recently went back to UV filters, something was different. But I shot in a dusty area that day why I had the filter. Sand scratch is the worst. Some situations you might need it. Using a lens hood help keep stray light that might effect the filter. Also used ND filter
@sturley187 Жыл бұрын
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.
@aussie8114 Жыл бұрын
That’s a great filter. The only downside I’ve found with my Hoya HD filters is they are not anti static.
@michaeltuffin8147 Жыл бұрын
You must be a UV filter salesman.
@JaySilva88 5 ай бұрын
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.
@joshcohen1318 Жыл бұрын
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 😊
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Not a bad tip!
@lumenspaul Жыл бұрын
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
@joshcohen1318 Жыл бұрын
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.
@chrisgrylls9132 Жыл бұрын
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.
@fragu123 Жыл бұрын
Hi Jan and thanks for all your video contributions! Reading through the comments, it seems that a lot of people do just use HD Nano Clear Filters (as I do too) and can’t find this quality degradation as pointed out by you testing UV Filters. I’d suggest to have a second video, based on your subscribers base opinions, checking out on Expensive Clear Filters too! Many regards and best wishes for your health, 👍🙌🇸🇪
@fragu123 Жыл бұрын
@jan_wegener …
@falxonPSN Жыл бұрын
It would be interesting, but keep in mind that even these super expensive glass filters are going to cause an additional reflection between the front element of the lens and the back of the filter. So there is no scenario in which they will not in some way degrade quality. Now you may be saying that this degradation is so subtle that you don't care, but it will absolutely be there.
@VideoSeeVideoDo 9 ай бұрын
It was my understanding that UV filters are not necessary on Digital Cameras ....since the sensors have UV filters, this was more of a film thing. The UV filter part is redundant, clear protectors all the way, probably the unneeded UV coating causing this.
@mirasga 8 ай бұрын
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.
@lr4687 Жыл бұрын
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.
@NWRIBronco6 Ай бұрын
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!
@royprasad Ай бұрын
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
@shutterednature2416 Жыл бұрын
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.
@ThatNorma 11 ай бұрын
just use clear filters like the Nikon Arcrest, you will get no degradation on your images. UV filters are usually crap
@alankefauver6187 Жыл бұрын
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.
@SteveP_2426 Жыл бұрын
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.
@shrapmetal 14 күн бұрын
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.
@wildcreationsphotography38 Жыл бұрын
Great video! I’m so happy to see that you’re doing better!
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much!
@sexysilversurfer Жыл бұрын
I agree that cheap filters degrade image quality but having a protective filter depends on your needs. I don’t have high megapixel 20mp cameras so doubt that in my case I would see the difference. Looking at your images you have lots of fine details in the feathers so it makes sense to avoid using filters.
@mikesch0815 Ай бұрын
Instead of any UV filters, you can also buy high-quality protective lenses, such as Hoya Protector. These are optically without a filter function, but with good coatings.
@AndrewHardacre Жыл бұрын
This is so true. I dropped my M9 with a 24 Summilux on it. The lens had a really good aluminium (?) lens hood on it. The hood now has some battle scars and is dinged a little but the lens is still in perfect condition and the body was also undamaged.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Great!
@schwarzer_peter9839 Жыл бұрын
It's true, that a filter can't improve on the image quality, at best it can't degrade it. But you can't deny it ads an extra layer of protection for your lens against dust, dirt, sand, (salt-)water and snow, which your lens hood can't protect against. I use a filter under these conditions and im taking better pictures with. Simply because I wouldn't taken the shot without an filter, because I worry to much about my lenses. Granted I am not an professional photographer and I don't make any money of my pictures, it's my hobby. In an professional environment the potential degradation in image quality is far more worrysome and I'm sure you have insurance and a backup if something brakes.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
In certain situations like wet dirt it can make sense. But then a clear filter seems to be the best choice
@jfphotography69 4 ай бұрын
I have been using UV filters "quality ones" on all my lenses for over a decade. Never saw any image degradation.
@darrellrobertson1695 Жыл бұрын
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.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
That would've been annoying if the filter actually ruined the element
@Wszyc Жыл бұрын
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
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Nice
@Shadowman-1960 11 ай бұрын
Thank you for having a different and most likely more accurate view on UV filters than the majority of other reviews I have watched.
@RollTideUK Жыл бұрын
I chucked my UV filters a long time ago.
@RockPolitics Жыл бұрын
I'm so glad that you made this video. I saw the same degradation and quit using UV filters years ago. When I happen to run into other photographers, I catch an endless supply of snarky comments about "not protecting those expensive lenses". (I even shoot without a lens hood often enough.) I want to tell them that they are shooting with less-sharp third party lenses, and they REALLY suffer from putting a UV filter on top of that - but I just laugh it off and move away from the noise. I fish, and I watch guys spend massive amounts of money on every trip but then balk at an extra few bucks for things like better quality hooks or lures. So they go home empty handed, and all that money was essentially wasted. We spend money on quality lenses for one reason, and that is to take the sharpest images we are capable of. The thought of degrading every single shot has always seemed like flawed thinking. I was sort of surprised that replacing the front element in the 100-500 is "only" $600 (or is that AU$600?). If you put that in the context of years of sharper images, it's pretty much just a cost of doing business.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Well said! It was 570 Euros. So I kind of rounded it up to 600 usd
@Weldon2004 Жыл бұрын
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?
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
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
@belaacs5238 Жыл бұрын
Jan, you are 100% right about UV filters. I dumped all of my UV filters. Steve Perry has a perfect video about UV filters. He scratches, hammers, and dumps from different heights with different weights and tips of the weights. Every guy who uses UV filters should watch that video and save tons of money and see how much damage UV filters can do to their lens threads and the inside of the lenses. Lens hoods (plastic) are the best protection because if they are dropped they might break but they don't damage the metal thread on the lens. The metal hoods if dropped can damage the lens and the lens thread and basically impossible to unscrew the lens hood.
@martinwarm4041 Жыл бұрын
Totally agree 👍
@thedronescene7474 Жыл бұрын
I own an R6 Mark II and RF 70-200 F 2.8. I added a B+W Clear filter and immediately noticed a HQ difference. Specially when zooming in. I sent back and re ordered again from B&H and the second filter had the same behavior. I then ordered a Hoya HD3 UV and this had 0 issues with IQ but for some reasons it was shifting the color of the images. No more UV or Clear filter for me. I instead used that filter money and added Canon Care Pack + Allstate Insurance.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing!
@thedanwriter1 4 ай бұрын
That’s why I use Leica filter glass, they are superb
@jpgo Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the Video and Yes! it make a huge difference when I removed mine from most of my lenses, specially the ones used for Wildlife photography.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing!
@huarcadios 14 күн бұрын
thanks, greattings from Perú.
@staiain 4 ай бұрын
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.
@sswildlifevideos Жыл бұрын
I think the lens hood on telephoto lenses offers sufficient protection. Great vid!
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Agreed
@billburgess9100 6 ай бұрын
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.
@apenza4304 Жыл бұрын
Twenty years ago I brought my Canon 400 mm in for repair with a UV filter attached. When I received the repaired lens back it came with a note from the tech repairman saying that I would get better results without the UV filter. Never used them since.
@jeffolson4731 Жыл бұрын
As someone that has done it, I can attest that the lens hood will protect the lens in a fall. I dropped my camera lens first into a rocky beach. The lens hood save everything. No damage to my gear, just the embarrassment at what I had done.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
good to hear!
@cmalc8 8 ай бұрын
Big fan of your logical and direct way of speaking. It's a refreshing change from some meandering presenters. ...and thanks for the tips !
@kangkang7302 17 күн бұрын
Also, there is little point for telescope lens as the lens hood is almost always on, which protects the front element. For general purposes lens or street photography photos, a good UV filter saves $$$ when incidents happen.
@MisterArgos 4 ай бұрын
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.
@swadventurer6624 3 ай бұрын
I would like to see a sharpness test when using a moderate and expensive circ polarizer. Thank you.
@jan_wegener 3 ай бұрын
It’ll likely have an effect, but a polariser also has a positive effect whereas that is more debatable with clear ones
@Twobarpsi Жыл бұрын
For exactly the reasons mentioned here, I do not use protective UV filters! Good to see I have been doing things right!
@erkkisiekkinen286 7 ай бұрын
I use very expensive japan made Hoya protector filters on my lenses (except Ef 500mm f4) In my opinion my photos are very sharp -for instance the other day I photographed with my R8 and EF 500mm f4 IS ll and later with Rf 600mm f11 stm with Hoya filter (same body) and in both cases sharpness and feather details were superb. On the other hand I have never used an UV filter. I guess these expensive and very thin proctectors work a lot better than oldish UV filters which are mostly discontinued. Maybe I still try without filters because I have bought hoods to all my lenses. Cheers
@royprasad Ай бұрын
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.
@davidlewis5929 Жыл бұрын
I never got the idea of a UV filter for a digital camera since UV light doesn't impact a sensor like it can film. Though I have thought about getting a cheap one to crack to see what I can do with shots directly into lights. You know there are times when using a lens hood will also impact your sharpness. Steve Perry did a great video on when you should avoid using the hood.
@MFusys Жыл бұрын
And I was wondering why my old lens (without UV filter) has often sharper photos. Now I know . Thank you!
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Glad I could help
@gregfisher216 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for posting this video. I am sure you will get a lot flak for your position on UV filters. I have EOS R full frame and some expensive RF glass to go with it . I agree, with the lens hood protecting the front element. I had a situation a few years ago when my camera with a 24-70 2.8 EF went flying into the floor board of my truck breaking the lens hood and protecting the front element. You are a professional and it is critical that you get the best image possible . But at the end of the day we Armatures and advanced users are happy if we get a sharp image with decent composition. I am intrigued by the difference in image sharpness and detail by not a UV filter and may try this on my landscape and architecture shots.
@drd8087 Жыл бұрын
Hi Jan, Thank you for your videos, I have learnt so much from them. This video is particularly interesting given peoples varied experiences. I think what this tells us is always to be mindful of possible image alteration when using filters and to test with and without them to make sure with any given combination. I took some test shots with one of my lenses holding everything constant except for the filter and could not detect any appreciable difference. I think however I will do this with all my lenses that I intend to use a filter with. Thanks again.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Yes that’s was the whole point really. Make sure to test it outside in the sun as well
@relaxwithbirds Жыл бұрын
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.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Yes, I'll need to get some of those at some stage
@michaellewis5921 8 ай бұрын
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...
@SylvainBourmache Жыл бұрын
Thank you Jan, jus went to a photo session out and was unhappy with the results as I found my images not that sharp - I thought it was me (and it might be !) as I went handheld; but now I will take out the UV filter and try again to find out is it was me or that piece of so-called protection we are somehow pushed to buy by resellers ! I agree with you about the proper protection knowing I never came even close or scratching any of my lenses as I'm super careful - rather taking myself a knock or stumble rather than dropping my kit.. Good to be told, on my way to try and it all makes sense now, I'm sure my images will be much sharper now !
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Fingers crossed
@rustyanddebbieperkins Жыл бұрын
Outstanding - just purchased an EF 100mm macro - of course I purchased a UV filter with it, now I plan to remove from all my lenses to test sharpness. THANKS!
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Yes, testing it yourself will be good!
@user-sw7bo7pu7w 2 ай бұрын
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 :)
@tc6912 Жыл бұрын
I have always used UV filters for the past 44 years. I like to take care of my gear and hold on to it way past its technical prime. I have also used upper end filters. Had one accident over the years that damaged the filter, maybe three that could have caused damage if the filter wasn't there. However, I have been trying to step up my image quality and will do some testing without the filters. I recently bought a 50mm 1.8 and never put the filter on. I get excellent image quality from it, but it is native brand prime. The hoods get bulky at times. A nice resilient rubber ring that either screws into the filter mount or snaps onto the hood mount and still allows the cap to be installed would be nice.
@ThatNorma 11 ай бұрын
why not consider using clear filters like Nikons Arcrest series instead of UV filters?
@garymc8956 Жыл бұрын
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?
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
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
@tdunster2011 Жыл бұрын
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.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
@@tdunster2011 well said
@lukes5533 Жыл бұрын
What a great and true comment. All filters must then degrade images lol.
@side_quest 4 ай бұрын
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
@paulbusby2013 8 ай бұрын
I do not use UV filters on my mirrorless lenses! I use clear filters. I fit filters to keep the weather out, not to reduce physical damage - I use plastic lens hood that absorb damage (sometimes breaking). I do have to wipe off smears from the filters every 4 months or so. Filters are also removable so I make sure they aren't too tight.
@tomhalbouty3653 Жыл бұрын
I did a good bit of comparative testing with and without filters on my R5 with some sharp native Canon lenses. I simply did not see differences even after pixel peeping. I do believe that a filter can under certain conditions reduce contrast and sharpness if used without a lens hood because the glass and pick up additional stray light. I'm not doubting your test or viewpoint, but I have not experienced the differences you illustrated in this video.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
It's interesting to see all the different responses. I guess there have to be a lot of different quality ones out there. I have yet to come by one that doesn't affect IQ. The filters I had performed the worst in sunlight
@sturley187 Жыл бұрын
@@jan_wegener I just did some testing in sunlight and filters affect the image quite a bit. The filter doesn't impact the image much under certain conditions. But I am reversing course and removing all filters. I'll only use one if I think a harsh environment poses a risk.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
@@sturley187 thanks for sharing Scott. I should’ve mentioned the sunny part more maybe
@belanyul3057 Жыл бұрын
Dear Jan! I do not dispute that it is necessary to draw the attention of beginner photographers to the fact that certain filters can, in certain cases, change the quality of the shots - to varying degrees. However, the information must be appropriate on a professional basis. Let's be clear: Even today's cheapest - branded - filters are all made from high-precision flat glass plates on precision machines. Such a glass sheet - if placed perpendicular to the axis of the optics - will never, in any way, impair the resolution of the objective. (except if dirty or scratched) Filters can only worsen the contrast if their anti-reflection is not effective. It's true that even the best filters can cause flare problems when shooting in the evening light, but that wasn't the case here. In addition, too much emphasis has been placed on the protective effect of filters, even though 90% of those who use protective filters do not want to protect their expensive lenses from breakage, but from dust and other contaminants. However, the optical glass is hard for nothing if the much softer anti-reflective layers are damaged during cleaning.
@trfisher78 3 ай бұрын
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.
@Nolan.YøuTùb Ай бұрын
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
@heidiwegener7614 Жыл бұрын
Very clearly explained and demonstrated.
@chrishopkins8987 Жыл бұрын
Great video Jan, and this is something I personally have done for over 10 years after discovering the degraded IQ (and colour casts) using certain UVs. I use the hood and I also don't bother with lens caps with the hood covering the lens. Another small tip I adapt is to clean the lens front using my fleece jumper rather than fish through my bag looking for the cleaning cloth!
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing!
@j.kimmer1509 Жыл бұрын
Thank you Jan, great information. I will take them off today; only keep them for paintball shoots and heavy particulate in atmosphere situations. Thank you.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Yes, in these extreme cases they can make sense
@ElMacho0423 Жыл бұрын
Will definitely consider this next time I want to take the best possible picture cause that yellow fuzzy UV filter looks awful 😬 but for my use case I actually need the UV filter 😅
@juhonkanava2068 Жыл бұрын
I use filter with sony 200-600mm and I'm happy with images.
@BrucePhung Ай бұрын
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.
@paulgibbings9553 Жыл бұрын
I slipped over backwards with my Sigma 150-600C, I managed to save it hitting the ground by using my face (not deliberately). The lens hood broke, and I ended up with a big crack on the lens where it was attached. But no scratches to the front element 🤣
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Yikes, sounds like quite the acrobatics act
@cesarm8811 Жыл бұрын
Jan, just took off the UV filters on both my Nikon Z50 kit lenses. I always use my hood when taking photos and put the lens cap on when putting my camera in my bag. Great video!
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Happy to help :)
@bellasvistas3463 Жыл бұрын
I had some serious issues with an Amazon Best Buy UV filter. It almost looked like shooting through heat waver with a 300MM F4.0 Olympus lens. I bought a $200.00 B&W UV filter with all the Nano Tech speak and I think it's been working fine on the 300MM even with a MC20 2x converter. I did some tests and made a video about that experience. I will certainly check it out again. Thanks for the info. Mike
@jonerikrolf2029 Жыл бұрын
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.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Yes for videos I use ND filters, but when I use big lenses I sometimes have to use the shutter speed to compensate.
@Granfoss Жыл бұрын
I stopped using them a couple of years ago. I notice the difference even tho i used B + W expensive UV filters.
@hans-gerdschievink5190 Жыл бұрын
Many thanks for this video, Jan, I have now a couple of UV-filters for sale ;-)
@pedzsan Жыл бұрын
If you really want to see what a front filter does to your images, go out and take night time cityscape shots. Without even very close inspection, you will notice that for ever point of light in the photograph, there is a secondary point of light close to it. I discovered this back around 1984. I don't view the lens hood as a protector. I was taught to always use a lens hood to reduce flare and so I do. The idea that "I like lens flare" (which I've heard from other KZfaq channels) is incomprehensible to me. I'm currently in a mental struggle because sometimes, a graduated filter for landscapes can be used. So the question becomes is it better to use a filter in the field or take multiple exposures and merge the images at home during post. That's a hard one to answer since there are clear pros and cons to each method. There are other times when a filter has advantages. I've let to be able to do in post what a polarizer does in the field. Or a neutral density filter in some circumstances. BUT... this also leads to -- "you can not ever afford cheap equipment". If you do need filters, buy the best you can afford.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
A good quality grad filter will not affect IQ as much Id think
@thebowlerusa1 10 ай бұрын
I'm just a hobbyist and also a bit stingy. I used polarizers and nd filters when taking photos, especially for landscape photos. I use a larger size filter and use step up rings when needed. Thus, I cannot use the lens hood. That's why I used uv filter on my lenses to have some type of protection, the least. So far, I have not seen much image degradation, and if there would be, it's mostly my fault.
@classlyfstyleasmr 3 ай бұрын
Can you do a filter and no filter comparison with the Helix MagLock UV Filter please
@mickeyoern 6 ай бұрын
Solved my problem. Evidence-based claims and good suggestions. Thank you.
@jan_wegener 6 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@whoofoto Жыл бұрын
My testing conclusion. After running my test images through DxO PureRaw3 and viewing them in Adobe Lightroom magnified to the max possible. Yes, there is a difference, especially with the noise free images. But this is nitpicking as it will not be noticed by many. I for one will continue to use the filter which is cheaper than a new lens. I used two lenses and two camera bodies. As some readers did, I ran tests photographing a lace curtain on a window from 11 feet away, the differences comparing with and without a filter were difficult to detect. I used an older 80-200 Nikon ED AF-S lens with an adapter to attach it to a Z6 body. Shots were zoomed to 200. Not detecting any differences, I decided to try it with a Z9 camera body. Once again I did not detect any difference. On the Z9 it was shot in the DX mode and then enlarged 400x. The filter on the 80-200 lens is a B+W XS ProDigital. I am assuming the digital tag added to the name hopefully indicates it is manufactured to a higher standard for digital sensors and not just a marketing ploy. Although shooting just a relatively flat image, as one would expect, photographs done at an aperture of f6.3 were noticeably better than those done at f2.8. Thinking a newer lens might show a difference, I mounted and tested this with a micro Nikko MC 105/2.8 S lens (made for Z cameras) with a filter purchased with the lens as a package deal by B&H. The filter is a Chiaro T99 UV 62mm filter. I presumed B&H knows what they are doing to include some "new-name filter" so I got the package deal. With this setup I did not find any difference in the side by comparison of the images. All shots done with the Z9 body were triggered using the built-in 5-second time delay to minimize shake. I tested this at f2.8 and f6.3. A story from the past where a filter saved the objective of a 80-200mm f2.8 lens. The lens fell out of an unzippered sack onto the hard concrete floor. The cap was on but the filter cracked and the filter mount threading was visibly dented out of round. The filter was stuck on the lens. Filter wrenches could not remove the filter. Drastic measures were resorted to for removing the filter. Holding the lens facing downwards let the broken glass drop into a trash receptacle and to avoid sending shards onto the objective lens, the cracked filter was carefully tapped to break it into smaller pieces. The glass had to be removed in order to access and remove the brass filter mount. Hopefully anyone reading this doesn't have to do the same. And if so, use a heavier object like the a hammer maybe wrapped in something thin but soft. And hit it with short strokes. The weight of the hammer helps easily control breaking the glass filter. With all the glass removed, the filter mount was cut, twisted and bent inwardly to safely remove it from the lens. Happily, the lens threading was not damaged and a new filter screwed in without binding nor feeling of tightness.
@TimvanderLeeuw Жыл бұрын
Jan, what you have shown me regarding UV filters is not even the worst of how bad it can get. When I bought my first DSLR back in 2008 I knew nothing about photography and the shop assistent easily convinced me to buy a UV filter for each of my lenses, which I then put on front of the lenses and promptly forgot about. Many images came out looking OK, or at least not obviously bad. But under the wrong lighting conditions, mostly front lighting, I would get completely washed out images with one of the lenses. Flat, no contrast. I blamed it on the lens. Only many years later, when I had already bought a newer camera, I thought to try some test shots with and without that UV filter... And was stunned by the difference. The lens was not at fault after all. It was the UV filter which had been ruining a number of shots giving a flat washed out look to images. I wish that I still knew where the test images were that I then took. But since then, no more silly UV filters on my lenses.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Yes, I think that's the main reason I made the video, to remind people that the filter may be the cause of most issues they're facing. Thanks for sharing
@Parroting_Australia234 Жыл бұрын
Thank so much Jan, I did a quick trial myself and found that my shots were way sharper without my UV filter! I'm only 13, and bird photography is a very new passion for me, so I really appreciate these extremely helpful videos. Good luck with your inspiring photography journey, and I really hope you get to see Princess parrots one day!
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
I do too! Glad I could help
@aussie8114 Жыл бұрын
Your filter is not of high quality. If you find a need or desire to use a protection filter be assured there are very good filters out there that will have no loss of image quality.
@colintraveller Жыл бұрын
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 ..
@gerardrivas4010 Жыл бұрын
oh my god. you just fixed my sharpness issue. It was just this damn stupid UV filter. thanks man. it worked. 👍👍👍👍👍👍
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Awesome!
@festerbestertester1658 Жыл бұрын
I'm sorry, but I think you made a very GOOD case for using UV filters. The difference in sharpness is very modest and I don't think anyone would even notice except possibly in a side-by-side comparison, like you did here. As for the color cast, also negligible and easily fixed in LR. Compared to a lens repair that could easily run into the hundreds of dollars, I think a filter is cheap insurance.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
I took several hundreds images of each scene and picked the best looking ones. While maybe not 100% controlled it was definitely enough to see a clear trend
@iamjeromedupont 3 ай бұрын
Beautiful images!
@NickBarang Жыл бұрын
They don't protect the front element at all. Try a drop test. Place a UV filter on a stand a drop a marble on it. Watch the marble go straight through. Then, place a cheap lens front element in the same place as it took for the filter to break. Watch the marble bounce off of it without damaging it. UV filters are always a waste of money. I agree they hurt the image too. Nice video :-)
@lumenspaul Жыл бұрын
Try the sigma protective filter it certainly will protect more than a UV filter
@NickBarang Жыл бұрын
@@lumenspaul I have no need for protective filters at all. I prefer image quality.
@lumenspaul Жыл бұрын
@@NickBarang good ,but to say they do not protect lenses is a misconception ,they certainly do in some scenarios and especially when you contionusly cleaning your front element from dirt ,sand and sea water ,and i guess you have never had the lens cap come of in your bag and continously rub against your front element .but agreed for 90 % of normal photography a lens filter for protection is just folly.
@NickBarang Жыл бұрын
@@lumenspaul A UV filter is a total waste of time. Sure, there are times when a protective filter has value, but that's not the conversation on the video or here in the comments. I have over 50 lenses, I travel with them from country-to-country-to-country and they're all just fine without UV filters. And I shoot in pretty much all conditions (except freezing, I'm too close to the equator for that) too.
@lumenspaul Жыл бұрын
@@NickBarangI would not use a standard uv for protection , i use a sigma ceramic uv for protection when needed
@SanPedro22 Жыл бұрын
A game changer. Took my UV filter off immediately. And I have only high end filters. Possibly only for rain and beach sand. Have to really think. Possibly a polarizer for the beach. A big decision. Will research.
@g.turner7377 Жыл бұрын
Pretty much most filters using Schott (Brand) B270 Glass (base glass) ; such as B&W Nano, Schneider, Heliopan, Okko Pro (UV only) , also with different glass are Nikon Arcrest Line - are pretty good...... and will run for $150-$400 a filter for pro sizes like shown +77mm. Perhaps try this with such a filter and show it again not using cheap filters (which $100 is still cheap).
@jpdj2715 Жыл бұрын
Jan, your story is valid and relevant as a general observation. The colour deviation variances we get from filters can be huge (some years ago a bunch of ND filters or polarizers got tested by another influencer, illustrating this). Your observed sharpness impact - I don't see it from my Nikon "S" class Z mount glass with Hoya Fusion UV filters. And as protection in my Z 7ii, there still is a Kase filter. My biggest problem with these losses of detail are in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) when for example Topaz Gigapixel AI retrieves details from raw that I had not thought would be possible. It's an interesting experiment you did, though, and I now have homework to do. I hate hoods in general and my Z primes seem very resilient to glare as well as flare (the new 85/1.2S seems an exception though). On another level, as AF software got developed without filter most likely, I may have to ALSO verify if these UV filters actually impact AF speed, precision, and/or low light abilities. I may have to move to your side of the hood.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
It's hard to properly test AF performance with and without filter. It did seem to use less eye tracking and instead often went to a wider box with the filter, but Idid not test that aspect enough. However it would make a slot of sense if it affected AF to some degree as well. If it impacts sharpness that much.
@shelleystoneman Жыл бұрын
Great video! Have you tried canon protect filters? They seem to work good (not uv filters at all though)
@bjrn-einarnilsen687 Жыл бұрын
I do not use uv filter, but i always use the lens hood. Saved me many times 👍🙌
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Yep!
@TaiwanisMoving Жыл бұрын
This is the real tip for those who don't know. Also, hiking through brush and whatnot, the lens hood protects it from a lot of prying branches
@WernerBirdNature Жыл бұрын
Hi Jan, this is indeed an important one and not many people point it out. There's just one point I disagree with: one should not throw away the UV filter, but just store it and put it back on the lens when selling it, in order to increase the perception the lens was well protected (towards people unaware of this mistake ;-)) Actually, I learned this point over a ago from 'another' Jan living in Victoria. And I had at some point explained this to my colleague who was shooting Nikon at the time. Last Black Friday, he was tired waiting for a Z90 and weightlifting his 200-500, so he jumped ship to get the R7 & 100-500. After his first shoot he called me in utter panic .. all his images had some weird distortion (blurry lines all over). I also checked his cr3 to try to make sense .. some hours later he contacted me again .. seems like he had (for security sake) popped on an old UV (which he once had washed and left to dry without cleaning 😛) He was very ashamed because he then recalled I had explained him this lesson I had learned from you 😀
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
Ha! Good point!
@WernerBirdNature Жыл бұрын
@@jan_wegener Thanks, also because I owe you a real good laugh about my colleague being minutes away from returning the 100-500 to the shop 😀
@EverythingCameFromNothing Жыл бұрын
Great advice!! Didn’t realise you were aussie! I like your channel even more now 🙃
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
hehe :)
@chrisbartlett8146 Жыл бұрын
What about circular polarizers. Should you use them and will they help or hinder.
@jan_wegener Жыл бұрын
They are good if you are dealing with reflections mainly
Harley Quinn with the Joker
Рет қаралды 26 МЛН
Jan Wegener
Рет қаралды 170 М.
Protecting Your GLASS? | SHOULD YOU USE FILTERS FOR YOUR LENSES? | FIRST LOOK - Arcrest | Matt Irwin
Matt Irwin Photography
Рет қаралды 11 М.
Harley Quinn with the Joker
Рет қаралды 26 МЛН