Don't Make THIS MISTAKE! | Here's why UV Filters hurt more than they help!

using 70-200 with uv filter , hood and there were so many instances where the front element was covered in dirt,sand,water and other junk i got an absolute bargain on the lens so im glad i had it on, despite that the front coating is somewhat damaged still

Which model and brand uv filter were used here?

But, what quality UV filter was tested here?

Solved my problem. Evidence-based claims and good suggestions. Thank you.

I thought you were joking because you are showing us images that are pretty much equivalent and then saying one is so awful. But you're serious, I think, Weird.

I've got a filter (not uv), thats a Dörr DHG super protective. Theres SO much flare, or better said, so much BOOSTED flare. The sony 24-105 gives a bit of flere (but users tell me it should not?). The flares got much worse. Wow... Just a bit afraid that I will brake it the first thing I do haha,,

Thanks!

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

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

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.

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.

Pure science here..

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.

Big fan of your logical and direct way of speaking. It's a refreshing change from some meandering presenters. ...and thanks for the tips !

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...

Camera lense are so expensive because they do have already uv coating and all typer of filter in it ...... Why filters !!;:'*π¥€π¥€•®{°¥π

Does it make any difference with Clear/Protector filters?

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.

This is a very interesting video, and yeah, those filters are really, really bad on your camera, LOL -- it even wrecked the color, which is very strange. But what brands specifically are you testing? An independent shootout someone did with a laser indicated that the dispersion and UV effectiveness varied wildly among filters even within a given price range. Also, I would expect the curvature of the front element to be a meaningful factor -- in fact, I'd even like to posit that there would be less distortion on a prime rather than a zoom lens (which is more tricky optically). Filters are invaluable for controlling sensor noise, low CRI light issues and keeping lenses factory clean, so this question should absolutely be pursued further. Perhaps I'll make a video about this myself...🤔

Unless you provide the raw files as evidence it is only your word against my experience.

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

Totally Disagree !😁

thanks, was very useful...✌

Amazing....thanks sir!

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.

Wait... people do not have lens caps on their lenses?

Top Video Jan 👌

to get that level of soften from a UV lens you would need to be vaseline on the lens fully. Remember how optics works you will know the front element especially the filter got very little to do with the optical path especially on tele lens. Unless he can scentifically reproduce these, this guy is just completely full of _

This might be an idea when you only work in a studio environment but while travelling, on the road, i ALWAYS use UV filters on ALL my lenses. Of course there is a difference between a cheap 4 dollar fake Hoya from Aliexpress or the real genuine thing from any reputable brand, but in the end, i don't see any difference between pictures i take with or without a good brand filter.

Thank you for having a different and most likely more accurate view on UV filters than the majority of other reviews I have watched.

If your examples prove anything to me, it’s that id rather take that minuscule loss of quality knowing my $200-$10,000 lens is better protected. The difference is so minimal.

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!

Try kenko filters… you just tested plastic over a sharp glass that’s it, you wanna put good quality filters on high end lenses

RF 100-500 front element coating is horrible, cheapest ever ive seen, very difficult to clean after rain or dirt and gets worn out right away. It definately needs some kind of filter.

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

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.

You’re forgetting some important factors. Are you talking about skylight filters, UVa filters circular polorizers, Black Pro mist filters, or ND? Each filter has its benefits and detractors. Using cost alone to determine value or quality is a dangerous method. The idea all filters are detrimental to image quality and sharpness is very false and misleading at best.

Also friend of mine who runs vintage camera shop says never store lenses with filters on front can def encourage fungus growth....also fungus can spread from lens to lens.... So don't store many lenses together!!!
Nice video though....

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.

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.

Many thanks for this video, Jan, I have now a couple of UV-filters for sale ;-)

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).

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.

I'm sorry, but the video tries to influence people who use protective filters in an influence-seeking way. The presented bird photos were probably taken of non-stuffed birds, so it is incomprehensible how it was possible to take pictures of them in the same position with and without a filter.

I would rather spend 600$ in rapairs over span of 5-10 years than ruining my pictures. And if people really think that they might damage their lens more often, then they are in a wrong profession 🙂 learn how to take care of ur gear.

oh my god. you just fixed my sharpness issue. It was just this damn stupid UV filter. thanks man. it worked. 👍👍👍👍👍👍

Well. It’s not like you use them all the time. Have it in your bag in case. For example, if you go to a windy beach. You don’t want your front element to be sandblasted. If you see the conditions aren’t good then put on the filter. But when you don’t need it take it off. Better have one in the bag when needed.

Your use case you don’t need any filters. Shooting birds in the woods isn’t a case where I would use a clear filter.

Well, maybe it’s my poor quality kit (z9 and d850)… but over the last 300k frames I have had great results with ALWAYS have a UV filters. Canon cameras are probably just so much better in image quality that you notice the filter. With my cheap nikon sensors it certainly doesn’t make a difference.

Thank you for this tip

I stopped using them a couple of years ago. I notice the difference even tho i used B + W expensive UV filters.