>>4423199I return with test results. Not 100% lab-grade test results, but results nonethenless.
I'm gonna saturate the thread with five images that highlight the difference in qualtiy that a couple different filters introduce.
The day was windy and rainy so I opted for something that would sit the fuck still and prevent subject blur: A tree trunk.
I originally planned on testing wide (24mm), normal (50mm), telephoto (100mm) and super-telephoto (400mm) focal lengths, but quickly realised that all but the worst filter has zero impact on anything 100mm and under.
At 100mm at a full crop zoom in-camera (so rediculously cropped) you could see the image differences, but nobody in the right mind would be cropping so severely.
So, the tests I'm going to show you are from a single lens at a single focal length of 400mm, as it stresses the quality of the filters the most, and is a focal length I shoot at regularly.
>I shot the tests with an R50 24MP APS-C Mirrorless camera, using a full-frame RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 USM lens.This is already stressing the optical quality of the lens elements, as I'm using a high res crop sensor.
The files are resized to 65% native resolution, are OOC JPEG with Super Fine compression.
Sharpening Strength +3, Sharpening Fineness +1, Contrast +0.
To begin:
>K&F UV Series-X FilterI am the kind of person who runs UV filters on everything by default, so this is my normal.
