21 UV & protection filters are put to the test and the results are rather surprising
Aug 15, 2017
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Share:
The “protective” filter debate rages on as always, but whether for them or against them, how do they all stack up? The folks over at Lens Rentals wanted to know. The man assigned to the task, Roger Cicala, didn’t really want to know, though. He’ll “get around to it some day”, he said. “Some day” came when he was told that it would involve lasers.
The test is to essentially see which filters will, theoretically, degrade your image the least. Which causes the least amount of light loss, reflection, refraction and distortion. So, 21 popular UV & protective filters were put to the test. It’s not entirely scientific, but it does involve lasers. The results are in and some of them are quite surprising.
The argument against UV filters typically goes something like this…
Why would you spend $2,000 on a lens to put a cheap piece of glass in front of it?
To which the obvious response is…
You don’t, you put an expensive piece of glass over it
But that’s where the first surprising result comes in. The most expensive filters aren’t necessarily the best. In fact, in one of the tests, a $20 Hoya HMC Multicoated UV beat out a $124 Zeiss T* UV Filter. And Heliopan’s $96 Protection Filter ranked almost at the bottom in the transmission test.
As surprising as the badly performing expensive filters, though are the high performing cheap ones. While B+W are a very well respected brand, their MRC Clear Transparent filters aren’t that expensive, at around $45, and test very favourably.
It’s not all about the light transmission & reflection, though. There are optical distortion issues to think about, too. How much does light scatter as it passes through the filter? Here again there are some quite surprising results.
Personally, I don’t use UV filters on my lenses unless I’m shooting film, or I’m in a particularly horrible environment where I’ll he cleaning the lens every few minutes. But if you’re one of those that swears by a filter on the end of your lens, now you can make a more informed buying decision.
Head on over to the Lens Rentals blog to check out the full test and results.
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Related Posts
Using diffusion filters – LEE ‘Soft’ Filters 1 to 5 comparison test
Need protection for your expensive filters? This hard filter case could be what you need
Test show that an airbag will smash your camera into your face rather than protect you
Heliopan will now replace your UV and protection filters if they shatter
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
8 responses to “21 UV & protection filters are put to the test and the results are rather surprising”
It seems that lately, when it comes to budget/pocket-friendly photography accessories, you do not get what you pay for, you get much more.
People can hate China and Chinese manufacturers but the simple fact is that many things are now made for much cheaper and still keep excellent quality. Hence, giving us photographers huge value, something we did not have before.
Well, all that test shows is how well those filters pass light at the 635nm wavelength. So there’s nothing to be drawn from that test that translates into real world usefulness, unless you’re a photographer who only shoots 635nm lasers. To me, it sounded less like a test, and more like an excuse to play with some cool equipment.
In any case, I’ve never had a shot ruined by a filter of any kind. So good, better, best is irrelevant to me. I just care about whether or not I get the results I’m looking for.
I’ve been borrowing lenses from friends to try. Some results of good quality lenses were depressing, until I noted the filter and unscrewed it.
My UV filter may ever so slightly diminish image quality, but my clients aren’t going to notice.
My UV filter did stop my £1500 70-200 2.8 from being totally destroyed when it was dropped.
I doubt it.
The front element of your lens is made of very hard, thick glass that doesn’t easily break or scratch when dropped.
The fact that your filter broke (and not the front element) is simply because filters are very thin pieces of glass that actually break very easily. It doesn’t mean the front element would have broken without the filter. A thin piece of glass can never prevent a lens from getting “totally destroyed”.
And picture this: use your elbow and strike it straight into the front of your lens.
Result without filter: nothing.
Result with filter: the filter breaks and the broken glass gets crushed between your elbow and the front element. Besides needing a band-aid for your elbow, your front element most likely has been badly scratched.
If you live in a humid climate, the material the filter is made of is important. Brass is much more tolerant of corrosion than aluminum, which frequently results in filters stuck on lenses. B+W uses brass along with some from Breakthrough Photography.
Yes I had a cheap aluminum filter on my Canon EFS-24mm1:2.8 lens. I dropped the camera in my house yesterday, onto the lens, on a linoleum/cushion floor, hard! The glass in the UV filter broke but would not unscrew by hand, so I pulled the shattered pieces out one at a time till the glass was gone and then took the family portraits I was planning to take. I then tried to remove the filter ring! I used a rubber coated jar opener but it would not budge! I tried carefully using channel locks, still nothing moved! I ended up putting the ring, lens and camera in my record vise!!!! I know crazy right! I did not apply too much pressure as I knew it would bind too much, then turned the camera carefully and slowly….it gave was on the third attempt and then I could remove it by hand the rest of the way. The lens is completely undamaged and I saw no jumped or bent threads on the filter, I just think it was stuck because of the cheap aluminum material used. It was part of a cheap three piece filter set I bought on ebay.
Thanks for sharing! I found this video quite helpful. https://youtu.be/9pY3ztZc62k