Amazing discovery please read!!!

I cannot tell you how many times over the years that I have read don't put a cheap UV filter on a good lens. I have taken many thousands of pictures and never bothered taking my filter off to see if it made a difference. Well today I did and all I can say is WOW, what a difference it made. I bought a Nikon 70-300VR lens with a UV filter when I purchased my Nikon D90 and have never been too happy with the pictures it took. Well today I removed it and wish I had done this a year ago. There is a noticeable improvement with it off. This picture was taken at 300mm which is where all the reviews said that it was soft. I still haven't perfected being able to post a sharp picture on the forums but even so I don't think this one looks too bad.

Please do yourself a BIG favor and remove your filter and see if it makes a difference for you as well. I am MUCH HAPPIER with this lens now, Jeff

Hi Jeff,
Wow that is nice. Very sharp and love the catch light.
Thanks for the tip on the UV filter.

I might add that I did not shapen this in PS, Jeff

I was convinced by the arguments I heard but glad to hear from someone who actually made the comparison.
Your shots seem sharp to me.

Grandpaw,
good thing that you let us know

what brand is you UV filter ?

I'll be hesitant taking pictures when there is for example ocean water spray without a filter to protect the lens

Nice Jeff!! I did the same awhile back. Took off a $100 German UV filter, and the pictures are much better and I have less glare which boosts the natural contrast of the lens. Even these expensive filters reduce image quality.

I had the same problem with a Hoya polarizer.

I am of the opinion the "filter for protection" is mainly an upsale item at the photography store. It's an easy sell, you are usually in some sort of shock that you've just spent $1K or so and an extra few bucks for a filter to protect the lens that you bought that nearly made you faint when you saw the sticker seems like a no brainer. It's a quick easy tack on with a very high profit margin.

My lenses have always gone naked unless there is something that needs a filter.

I've started taking my UV filters off. My 300mm has been naked since I bought it (I don't own a 77mm UV filter for it) and will probably stay that way. I do need to get some polarizers though, for times when I need one. I'm trying to figure out a good one that won't be too much of a dent on image quality.

Looks sharp to me. One of the biggest problems with UV filters is flare. Using a hood with the filter can help, but using a hood instead of a filter is my preference.

Paul

When I bought the lens they gave me a Promaster UV filter that I have been using. I guess it goes back to the saying "you get what you paid for". It didn't coast anything to get and it cost the same amount to get rid of it, Jeff

I'll definitely have to keep this in mind. I've never once thought twice about having a uv filter on. I just assumed that's what you did.

Congrats, welcome to the no filter world. Never have used them, never will. Why in the world would anybody hang a cheap piece of glass on a lens that cost well over $1K. Use hoods, all the time!!

Only exceptions, landscapes. I use 6 and 10 stop filters for moving water shots.

But Promaster sounds so professional?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frog

But Promaster sounds so professional?:confused:

---

:lol: :lol:

The hood is so large on the 70-300VR I have always felt that was pretty good protection while walking in the woods. In the car I always flip the hood and install the lens cap.

Good point and thanks for bringing it up.

Unless anyone has repeatedly cracked or scratched a UV/protection filter from impact, spray, whatever, it would be unwise to always keep it on.

I shoot in all kinds of weather from drenching rains to driving snows and I still don't use any filters. Leave the hood on, the camera pointed down until ready to shoot, and stick the entire rig inside your coat if you have to.

I never use a filter - that's what the hood is for :)

This is the first forum where I've ever seen such a consensus. Usually this creates a firestorm of arguments.

My usual statement after such a firestorm is to say: "If you feel you must use a filter, use a good multi-coated one, such as a Hoya, B+W, or Heliopan, etc. they degrade the image the least".

This is definitely one of my pet peeves, I don't know how many times I have seen a photo posted that has horrible flare, ghosting, fogging, etc. and the OP is distraught because they think there is something wrong with their lens or camera, and invariably the solution is take the filter off.

PS, Sorry livin, I had hoped it wasn't a filter in your post in Help, but I wasn't sure. Have you sorted out the problem yet?

Thanks for the info. Will definitely try shooting without.

Awesome shot, too. Looks sharp enough to me.

I bought my first real camera back in 1970 and it was a Nikon F film camera. I was taking some wedding pictures and someone shook up a coke at the reception and it sprayed everywhere, getting on someone Else's camera lens and messing up the coating. I put UV filters on all my lenses from that time on and never thought any more about it. After taking it off I can easily see the difference a cheap one makes.

The reason I wrote this post was just to get everyone thinking about it and let them try it and see for themselves if it it made a difference. I have a feeling that there will be many who do try taking the filter off that will be pleasantly surprised.

I would like to thank everyone for staying on topic and not arguing about whether filters should or should not be used. I have read about the effects of filters many times myself over the years and never tried taking them off to see if it actually did make a difference. Hopefully this will get others to try it for themselves and know one way or the other, Jeff

Filters is still one place where quality rules, and there is a difference between the cheap and the costly filter. But with counterfeit stuff you my be purchasing a cheap filter instead of the good brand name filter.

I am very curious to see if any of you that have been following this thread have tried removing you filter to compare the difference. If you have I would be interested in knowing what the results were and if you haven't please do yourself a favor and try it. It will cost you nothing but a few minutes of your time and you just may be pleasantly surprised at the results, Jeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grandpaw

I am very curious to see if any of you that have been following this thread have tried removing you filter to compare the difference. If you have I would be interested in knowing what the results were and if you haven't please do yourself a favor and try it. It will cost you nothing but a few minutes of your time and you just may be pleasantly surprised at the results, Jeff

---

Yes I'll post the results next week. But I don't have any poor quality filters to test.

I've never been a "protection" filter fan myself. I had a friend who was having problems getting sharp photos with one of her lenses. I did some testing with it, both with and without her UV filter. Admittedly, the test I didn't weren't perfect, but I could notice a slight difference. The images without the filter appeared sharper. I remember bringing a photo of the moon to our photo club that had a strange orange blob in it. I'm sure it was a reflection from her filter.

I have also heard that when it comes to lens repair, one of the cheapest parts to replace is the front element. So if you use an expensive filter, it might cost just as much to replace a scratched filter than it would to replace the front element.