Do cheap UV filters noticeably reduce image quality, even on inexpensive lenses?
Asked 12/24/2013
3 views
2 answers
0
I use UV filters mainly to protect the front element of my lenses, and I usually buy very inexpensive ones. If I’m using lenses like a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, or 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G, is it worth paying more for a better multi-coated UV/protection filter? Will filter quality make a visible difference, or is a cheap filter fine on lower-cost lenses?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
9
Absolutely. Check out this instant-classic blog post from Lens Rentals, where low and high quality filters are compared in stacks to accentuate the effect. The short version is that both noticeably degrade IQ, but the cheap ones are a lot worse.
Overall, consider if you need extra protection at all for the situation, avoid any filter when you can. See Is a UV Filter required/recommended for lens protection? for that whole debate, but I'll just add that it's very common for someone to post here about some weird image artifact and the answer to be that it was caused by a protection filter.
Originally by user1943. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1943
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes. Filter quality can make a visible difference, regardless of whether the lens itself is inexpensive. A UV/protection filter adds another piece of glass in front of the lens, so poor-quality filters are more likely to reduce image quality through added flare, ghosting, and lower contrast. Better multi-coated filters usually minimize those problems, though any filter can have some effect.
If maximum image quality matters, the safest choice is to avoid a protective filter unless you truly need the extra protection for the shooting conditions. It’s common for strange artifacts to be caused by a protection filter rather than the lens.
So the practical takeaway is:
- cheap filters can noticeably hurt image quality
- better coated filters are less harmful
- no filter is usually best when protection isn’t necessary
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Do cheap UV filters reduce image quality when used only for lens protection?
Do I need a UV or protective filter on an expensive lens, and is a premium one worth it?
What should I look for when buying UV and polarizing lens filters?
Where can I buy inexpensive UV filters online, and what should I look for?
How do coatings on older M42 lenses compare with modern lenses, and do they affect image quality?