Do you use a filter on your 50mm 1.8 (nifty fifty)

workaccount

Hi,
I'm not sure whether I should really get one. I hear some people talking about how the UV filters can make the image a little softer....how do clear filters perform?

I'm not sure if it would be worthwhile getting one given the expense you need to fork out for a good one. I have noticed though that dirt has lodged around the edge of the glass on my 50mm and I haven't had it out much.

colblimp

I use skylights on all my lenses, purely to protect them from any damage. I'd rather pay out for a €30 - €40 filter than a few hundred for a new lens...

ThOnda

I use filter on the cheapest Canon lens (nifty) when I know that I'll be outdoors like rain-cover. And if I want to get some vignetting with opened Aperture.

cnocbui

I know of someone who methodically tested pretty much every Olympus 35mm lens, quantifying resolution, contrast etc. He also did some tests to quantify the effect of using filters.

The inescapable conclusion was that if one wants to habitually use a filter to protect a high quality lens, then one might as well save some money and buy a lower quality lens and use it without a filter.

He found that even filters from very reputable brands, such as Canon, B+W, Olympus could degrade image quality.

TheNorthBank

I recently (2 weeks ago) bought a 50mm 1.8 and have asked myself the very same question. But I've decided not to bother with the filter and compromise on image quality as the lens only cost me £81. I do use a UV filter on my other lenses though.

colblimp

TheNorthBank wrote: »

I recently (2 weeks ago) bought a 50mm 1.8 and have asked myself the very same question. But I've decided not to bother with the filter and compromise on image quality as the lens only cost me £81. I do use a UV filter on my other lenses though.

Where did you buy a 50mm 1.8 for £81?!! :eek: Do share...

workaccount

colblimp wrote: »

Where did you buy a 50mm 1.8 for £81?!! :eek: Do share...

Ebay probably.

Cabaal

colblimp wrote: »

Where did you buy a 50mm 1.8 for £81?!! :eek: Do share...

ebay and most other websites, I got my last one for 85e

Given the 50mm 1.8 is cheap as chip why bother spending money for a filter just to protect the lens, its not like its a Canon 70-200 2.8

Borderfox

I dont use a filter on the 50mm, all my other lenses have them on but the 50mm seems to be a lot deeper than the others.

TheNorthBank

colblimp wrote: »

Where did you buy a 50mm 1.8 for £81?!! :eek: Do share...

Microglobe in London, http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?pName=canon-ef-50mm-f18-mark-ii-standard-af-lens

I was over there a couple of weeks ago so I shopped around before I left to find the best price and this was the best I could find (apart from eBay).
If there's cheaper out there I'd love to know where?

cnocbui

I found the lens tests documenting the degradation in image quality when using a filter.

Copyright and credit to Gary Reese.

50mm f/1.4 Zuiko (multi-coated)
OM-2000 with mirror and diaphram prefire; lens with >1,100,000
serial number
Vignetting = D @ f/1.4, B @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A @ f/4
Distortion = none

No filter
Aperture Center Corner
f/1.4 B B
f/2 A- B
f/2.8 A A-
f/4 A A
f/5.6 A A-
f/8 A- A-
f/11 A- A-
f/16 B+ B+
Notes: High contrast, except moderate in center at f/1.4, moderately low
in corners at f/1.4 and moderate in corners at f/16; remarkably even
performance across all apertures.

With poorly made Vivitar VMC ND3 neutral density filter
Aperture Center Corner
f/1.4 C- C
f/2 C C
f/2.8 B B
f/4 B B+
f/5.6 A- A-
f/8 A- A-
f/11 A- A-
f/16 B+ B+
Notes: Differences are significant at the 1/3 grade level in this paired
comparison evaluation. Contrast was slightly lower with the filter, but
lower resolution was the most important factor in image deterioriation.
Please note that this particular filter is not indicative of Vivitar or
Vivitar VMC filters, in general. It just tested as a poor sample. Other
filter makers, even the most highly regarded, have been found to have
poor samples in selections taken from used and new stocks of filters.
The use of the term "poor" means star test images, viewed on
a vertical auto collimeter, which show images that are: multiple and
overlapping, fuzzy, off center, and images which rotate when the lens
is rotated. More often than not, only one of these faults are found in
an examined filter. These filters (including the test filter) often look
perfectly good when examined without the aid of instrumentation!




50mm f/1.8 Zuiko (multi-coated, late "Made in Japan" variant)

OM-2S with mirror and auto diaphragm prefire, serial number 5235157,
paired comparison with sample above to examine potential production
variation; identical coating
Vignetting = C @ f/1.8, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = slight barrel
Aperture Center Corner
f/1.8* B C-
f/1.8 B+ C
f/2.8 A B-
f/4 A+ A-
f/5.6 A A-
f/8 A A-
f/11 A- B+
f/16 A- B+
Notes: Moderately high contrast at f/2.8 and f/8 to f/16, high contrast
at f/1.8, very high contrast at f/4 to f/5.6. * = with an Olympus 1A
filter that "passed" a vertical autocollimator test; lens was
refocused after attaching the filter; no detectable contrast
difference with and without filter.

85-250mm f/5 Zuiko (multi-coated)

OM-4T with mirror and diaphragm prefire, sample 2
Vignetting = B- @ f/5 with filter, A- @ f/5 without, A- @ f/8,A thereafter
Distortion = moderate pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/5* C+ C+
f/5 B B-
f/8 B- B-
f/11 B B
f/16 B B-
f/22 ** **
f/32 ** **
Notes: * = with Hoya Skylight filter, which exhibits moderate contrast
images. Moderate contrast at f/16, moderately high at f/5-11. ** = no
SQF or contrast data available at f/22-32.


100mm f/2.8 Zuiko (multi-coated)

OM-4T with mirror and diaphragm prefire
Vignetting = A- at f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = slight pincushion (none?)
Aperture Center Corner
f/2.8* D C
f/2.8 C- B-
f/4 B B
f/5.6 B+ B+
f/8 A- B+
f/11 A- A-
f/16 B+ B
f/22 B+ B
Notes: * = with a Canon 1A filter, which exhibits low contrast. Moderately
low contrast at f/2.8 without filter, as well as f/4 and f/16-22, moderate
contrast at f/8-11, moderately high contrast at f/5.6.


Tokina RMC 28-85mm f/4 (multi-coated)
OM-4T with mirror and diaphragm prefire

@ 28mm setting
Vignetting = B @ f/4, B+ thereafter
Distortion = slight waveforming with
moderate pincushion tendency
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 A- B+
f/4* B+ B
f/5.6 A B+
f/8 A- B+
f/11 A B
f/16 B+ B+
Notes: * = with Hoya 1B filter. High contrast images in center and
moderately high contrast in corners at f/4 (with and without filter) to
f/5.6; very high contrast images in center and moderately high contrast
in corners at f/8 to f/11; very high contrast images in center and high
contrast in corners at f/16.


Leitz 90mm f/2 Summicron-R (1978 era 3-cam)
Leicaflex with mirror and diaphragm prefire
Vignetting = B @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/2* C+ C
f/2 B B
f/2.8 B+ B
f/4 B+ A-
f/5.6 A A
f/8 A- A-
f/11 A A
f/16 A B
Notes: * = Tested with a B+W 010 filter. Moderately high contrast images
at f/2; high contrast images at f/2.8 and f/16; very high contrast at
f/4 and f/11; extremely high contrast images at f/5.6 and f/8. Lens
condition 9+ (KEH=Ex+). Paired SQF grade and contrast comparison to the
90mm f/2 Zuiko Macro test done on a OM-2000, with SQF differences
significant at the 1/3 grade level.


Leitz 90mm f/2.0 APO-Summicron-M
Leica M4-P with cable release
Vignetting = none
Distortion = none
Aperture Center Corner
f/2* B C+
f/2 B C+
f/2.8 B+ B-
f/4 A- B
f/5.6 A+ B
f/8 A- B
f/11 A- A-
f/16 B+ B
Notes: * = with a B+W filter. High contrast images at f/2 to f/2.8; very
high contrast images at all other apertures.