Seems I was a bit inaccurate. I'll translate vital parts of their tests, link to some video content (in Norwegian) and hotlink some images with their permission.
First of all, mostly for fun, the Paparazzi deathmatch. Let me say that I think this is inaccurate, we PJ's usually go for the head, not the lens. But anyway.
The question now is wether or not a paparazzi needs a UV filter to protect his lens from other paraparzzis, or would a lens hood work better? Equipment in use: Nikon F50 w/ Tamron 28-300 vs. D700 w/MB-D10 and Tokina 100/2.8 (total weight 2145 grams). This is a test of the lens hood. Roll film!
Doesn't look nice, but the lens was not harmed.
Now, let's see how the camera shops proposed protection, the UV filter, works.
[video=youtube;6PG96gpgC-c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PG96gpgC-c[/video]
(For those who don't speak Norwegian, even if you don't, you'll see the result, and what they're saying is that the UV filter breaks into small glass pieces that will ruin the front element.)
They seem to think that the UV filter makes things worse. When the D300 hits, it's crushed, and broken glass hits the front element at high velosity, making nasty scratches that wouldn't have been there if the lens didn't have a filter.
The tiny scratch is in the left side of the image. Notice the not inconsiderable amount of glass dust on the front element. It's worth noting that these damages were impossible to spot on images from practical use.
Nest test is the
Sandbox Faceplant
This test is to establish what damage the front element of a camera will obtain if it falls into sand. Test without UV filter.
No noticable damage. According to this test, it's better to get large amounts of sand onto the front element than the crushed remains of an UV filter.
Right, now it's time for the big test, the so called
Excalibur test.
In the red corner, with a weight of 200 grams, we find the undefeated "World Crap lens Champion", the Canon 18-55/3.5-5.6:
(Disclaimer: This photo is in fact from the post mortem of the lens, we are very sorry for the inconveniance this might provide.)
In the blue corner, the newcommer
Excalibur!
Excalibur has a swing arm of aprox. 90cm and a weight of over 3 kgs. The forces from this weight is lead to the glass through this nail with it's head cut off:
'
We'll be running two rounds of tests, fist with the swingarm at 45 degrees, then at 90 degrees.
First with lens hood at 45 degrees:
Then with the UV filter at 45 degrees:
The UV filter dies with a nasty scratch, but it has actually done its job.
Then without any protection at 45 degrees (don't try this at home):
(At this point, I'll point out that I was mistaken, the lens gets damaged without the filter)
This provided enough force to bend the nail and make a scratch on the glass:
At moderate force, it is possible that a UV filter can do some sort of good.
The scratch does not seem to have any visual impact on the final photos:
("Foto": Tom)
Time to up the stakes, 90 degrees:
First with lens hood:
SNAP! Excalibur has defeated the indefeatable lens hood! You will respect it's authoritah!
So, let's see, will the UV filter safe the front element when things go PROPERLY pear shaped?
..err.. no.
Ugly:
We're getting small bits of glass sliding around behind the front element. We have enormous scratches.. this MUST do something drastic to the image quality of the lens?
...perhaps, but I can't see it. Some testing in difficult conditions might be warranted, but it does look okay.
Conclution: A UV filter might be better than nothing in very specific circumstances. But in other circumstanes, it will make matters worse. The lens hood is still what we'd advice for protection.
Original thread:
http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?showtopic=1231256
Posted with the explicit permission of the original writers and testers, please don't hotlink these images without their (through mine) permission.
