Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 23, 2009, 12:18 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: PA
Posts: 109
Default I did a test with and without a filter

I took a photo of a flower with the camera on a tri pod. I then put a $15 clear filter on my 18-55 lens and did some A/B comparrisons. The result was the quality of the photo with the lens filter was not as sharp. It was not a big difference but enough for me not to use it again. I returned it and replaced it with a $50 Nikon neutral filter and did the same test. For this particular test, I could not tell any difference between the two photos. Needless to say, this filter will be staying on my camera to protect my lens.

For my 55-200 lens, I am thinking about just using my hood as I am a little more concerned with zooming to 200 and keeping the same quality with the filter added.
__________________
Nikon D5000 with 18-55, and 55-200 vr lens
Nikon SB 600 flash
Nikon S640
Nikon Coolpix 5700
Canon Elan SLR

Glenn
Blueberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 23, 2009, 1:01 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Thanks for post that.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2009, 4:29 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

Once, just once in nearly 30 years with Nikons, I dropped a lens; well, actually it rolled off the table onto a tiled floor. The Hoya on the 80/200 was destroyed but the lens wasn't damaged at all. Since my work is motor racing then I am often in dangerous areas - not for me but for the camera and lenses should I drop one. Hence, wherever possible (and some lenses you can't protect with a filter but these have substantial hoods) my lenses carry a Hoya U/V which, incidentally, I find as good as a Nikon. Filters are a subject that create the usual "love'em - hate 'em" diametrically opposed arguments, but I rest decidedly for. Perhaps there is (I guess there must be) some degradation of the image but not enough for me to worry about.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2009, 8:41 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cameranserai View Post
... Perhaps there is (I guess there must be) some degradation of the image but not enough for me to worry about.
... at least not with Hoya filters.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2009, 9:35 AM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Here's a UV filter test that you may find interesting. The primary problems with some of them is flare (and loss of contrast from veiling flare) when you have brighter light sources in the frame:

http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article...ters_test.html

This Tiffen was really bad:

http://www.lenstip.com/113.24-articl...n_72mm_UV.html

They later published a supplement with some tests of more filters:

http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article...upplement.html
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2010, 11:18 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

[QUOTE=JimC;1023839]Here's a UV filter test that you may find interesting. The primary problems with some of them is flare (and loss of contrast from veiling flare) when you have brighter light sources in the frame:


would a hoya pro digital 1 uv filter degrade image quality or create any kinds of problems.
i know in the past i had focusing issues with this filter on a pentax k20d with a 16-50 lens.
now i have a nikon d90 with a 17-55 lens.

Dave
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2010, 1:10 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

depends on the speed of the lens - most autofocus systems need a minimum of f5.6 to work so if the filter drops you below that autfocus might be an issue - but with a uv filter i wouldn't imagine woul drop the light coming in that much
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2010, 1:57 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.Pattullo View Post
depends on the speed of the lens - most autofocus systems need a minimum of f5.6 to work so if the filter drops you below that autfocus might be an issue - but with a uv filter i wouldn't imagine woul drop the light coming in that much
the pentax 16-50 is a 2.8 lens and with the filter that lens had some serious focusing issues
the nikon 17-55 is also a 2.8 lens

Dave
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2010, 3:13 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

did it seriously degrade iq? as cant think why a uv filter would affect autofocus to that degree - i use hoya filters on fair number of my lenses to protect the front element and none of them affect autofocus that i can detect
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2010, 3:45 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.Pattullo View Post
did it seriously degrade iq? as cant think why a uv filter would affect autofocus to that degree - i use hoya filters on fair number of my lenses to protect the front element and none of them affect autofocus that i can detect

actually that would have been the last thing i would have thought would cause it, some time back, JimC asked me to remove the filter and see if there was any difference, and as soon as i removed it the K20D autofocus increased by at least 75% faster, but was still to slow for my taste , hench the reason i went over to nikon , since, bright light, low light , hardly any light, the D90 focuses and shoots right away.
so that i have accuried the 17-55/2.8 lens, before buying another Hoya pro 1 , i would really like to know or be assured that this filter wont create an issue.
at $1500 i would like to protect the front element,
but if it can or will create some sort of issue even as low as .0001%, i would prefer to not use one and let the hood do the protecting.

Dave
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:46 AM.