For those who use UV filters....

[STM]

The fact that Ken Rockwell believes lens caps are for amateurs tell you all you need to know...

How to Spot an Amateur

He left out one. Only an amateur would leave the rubber grips on his camera. A REAL photographer has a taxidermist use elephant foreskin (I am honest to God not making that up, look it up) to cover his camera bodies.

Rockwell can be so watahdid sometimes. In his 10 best Nikkor lenses, he quite curiously leaves out arguably their most legendary lens, the 105mm f/2.5. Now THAT is the sign of an amateur!

 

[Dave_W]

Indeed.

I prefer to take the opinion of someone who knows what he's talking about. Let's see what Nikon guru Thom Hogan had to say about UV filters a few years ago. He refers to film but it's even more true of digital...

Thom's Maxim #19: Don't put extra glass or plastic in front of your expensive, well designed glass unless you need to.
There's a tendency amongst amateur photographers to put UV or Skylight filters on the front of every lens they own. This tendency is encouraged by photo dealers, who, as they ring up your expensive new toy add "and you want a skylight filter to protect that lens, right?"
The reason the dealer asks this is simple: it's a way to increase their profit. Mail order outfits such as B&H and Adorama have made it difficult for local dealers to charge list price on lenses (though some still manage). For example, the markup on a 24-85mm AF-S lens is quite small, meaning that the dealer might make only $50 on your purchase. The markup on a $30 filter can be as high as 80%. By selling you that filter, the dealer can make another $24 on the sale, increasing his profit by 50%.
So the question is: do you need that filter?
First, let's examine why a UV or Skylight filter is usually suggested: it won't change colors, nor does it lower the amount of light that passes through to the film/CCD significantly. While most are made of multicoated glass, the two extra air/glass surfaces will have a slight impact on overall contrast due to refraction. Some dealers will tell you that you need these filters to get proper color at altitude, or in bright conditions, or some other nonsense. But the truth is that film hasn't needed UV filtration for quite some time now--all modern film stocks have virtually no UV sensitivity.
So what have you gained by putting a filter in front of your lens? Well, the other normally suggested reason is "to protect the front element of your lens from accidental scratching or breakage."
I suppose. Small scratches on the front element of most lenses don't actually have much effect on optical performance, though. Indeed, unless the lens is a very wide angle lens, about the only optical effect a small scratch would have is exactly the same one as a filter has: lower contrast. (On wide angle lenses at small apertures, depth of field might be large enough so that you'd see optical degradation due to a scratch or blemish.) And if you're going to bump the lens hard enough to create more than a minor scratch, you're probably hitting it hard enough to bust the filter, and glass scratches glass pretty darn well in such situations, so I don't hold much faith in the "protection from breakage" theory.
In short, I don't see much of a reason to put a filter on my lens for protection.Indeed, I've found that lens hoods tend to do a better job at that, anyway.
But note what I implied earlier in this discussion: adding a filter to your lens degrades optical performance. A really well made filter won't degrade performance noticeably, but it will degrade. Poorly made or inexpensive filters degrade performance more than well made ones. Every air/glass (or air/plastic) transition in a lens adds reflections, despite multi-coatings and quality materials. Every reflection decreases overall contrast. Some reflections can be insidious in this respect--especially if light is hitting the front filter surface unevenly.

Thom's Maxim #20: Good filters are expensive.
I'm always amused when a student pulls out $10 plastic filters and sticks these on the front of their $1400+ lenses. What's the expectation here? Unless it's some cartoon-like effect, this is an almost certain way to lower the quality of image that your camera can capture.

http://bythom.com/filters.htm

He on the right track, up to a point. He neglects to mention the dust/cleaning issue that a good filter provides as well as overstates the potential downside to having a filter for protection. These multicoated filters aren't going to shatter into small shards, rather they'll absorb the shock by breaking but still staying together.

And perhaps a scratch on a mail element isn't going to strongly effect your image quality, but try convincing a potential buyer of your lens that...I dare you. Chances are you will have to deeply discount your lens in order to attract a buyer. So yes, I do agree with Tom to a point - if money is no object and you have no expectations of reselling your equipment, then sure, a filter is probably not for you. However, I "invested" in my lenses and I want to maximize my ROI when I go to upgrade my lenses.

 

[jwstl]

And perhaps a scratch on a mail element isn't going to strongly effect your image quality, but try convincing a potential buyer of your lens that...I dare you. Chances are you will have to deeply discount your lens in order to attract a buyer. So yes, I do agree with Tom to a point - if money is no object and you have no expectations of reselling your equipment, then sure, a filter is probably not for you. However, I "invested" in my lenses and I want to maximize my ROI when I go to upgrade my lenses.

Good points. While I tend to agree with Thom, you also need to consider your shooting style and subjects. Are you shooting in environments with high potential for damage? Shooting at an NFL game where you could get run over and you might want a filter. Is the highest picture quality of less importance? Perhaps you shoot for the web or news print reproduction etc. Again, a filter might make sense.
The other side of the coin...Are you shooting landscapes with the D800E and the 24-70 2.8? I wouldn't use a UV filter in that instance.
Again...in general principle I'm not a supporter of UV filters but there are always exceptions to the rule. Consider your needs and make the best decision for you. But if you do decide you need a UV filter for protection, buy the best filters you can afford.

 

[Ruidoso Bill]

I invested a lot of $ in lenses the end of last year with the Nikon Trilogy, I do my very best to protect $6,000 in lenses at all times. Call me whatever you want, I protect my glass with lens caps.

 

[STM]

I invested a lot of $ in lenses the end of last year with the Nikon Trilogy, I do my very best to protect $6,000 in lenses at all times. Call me whatever you want, I protect my glass with lens caps.

I will second that motion, I probably have about $20,000 in Nikon glass, and you can call me an amateur if you want, my images speak otherwise, but I will do my best to protect my investment!

 

[STM]

So multi coated clear Hoya 55mm sound about right?

Hoya calls theirs UV(0) filters. You can get cheaper, but you will not get better in my opinon. I have a couple of Nikon filters and I can tell no difference between them and all of my Hoya's. My other filters, ND, polarizing and colored ones (green, yellow, red, orange and 1A) are Hoya as well.

 

[Ruidoso Bill]

If you want one here are some tests.

Thanks for the link, interesting results. Makes me wonder how noticable any of these are in everyday photography.

 

[§am]

Hoya Pro-1D filters are best suited to digital cameras (from Hoya anyway), and that's the range I use.

As to the age old question of whether it affects IQ or not, well for me, I use one, I don't use one, to my eye the pictures looks the same, therefore I don't mind spending a bit to ensure I've protected my lens from accidental knocks and scratches and the like.

Also to those that may argue, putting a cheap piece of glass in front of an amazing (Nikkor) piece of glass.... yes you are entitled to this opinion, but at the same time, when you need a particular effect, you're happy to stick a polariser or ND filter etc in front of the lens... yet these filters are still made by the same company as the UV/clear filters, so where is the logic in that?

As for the whole lens cap issue - hahaha I can't wait for Nikon, Canon, Sony etc to start NOT providing lens caps for their prosumer series of lenses, but still provide them for the consumer ranges
I'd become a pro user overnight by hiding all my lens caps and suddenly having pro lenses, unlike Uncle Bob who happened to have his lens cap on for the few hours he never used his camera!!!!!

 

[STM]

Hoya Pro-1D filters are best suited to digital cameras (from Hoya anyway), and that's the range I use.

As to the age old question of whether it affects IQ or not, well for me, I use one, I don't use one, to my eye the pictures looks the same, therefore I don't mind spending a bit to ensure I've protected my lens from accidental knocks and scratches and the like.

Also to those that may argue, putting a cheap piece of glass in front of an amazing (Nikkor) piece of glass.... yes you are entitled to this opinion, but at the same time, when you need a particular effect, you're happy to stick a polariser or ND filter etc in front of the lens... yet these filters are still made by the same company as the UV/clear filters, so where is the logic in that?

As for the whole lens cap issue - hahaha I can't wait for Nikon, Canon, Sony etc to start NOT providing lens caps for their prosumer series of lenses, but still provide them for the consumer ranges
I'd become a pro user overnight by hiding all my lens caps and suddenly having pro lenses, unlike Uncle Bob who happened to have his lens cap on for the few hours he never used his camera!!!!!

I might be "all wet" on this, it will not be the first time nor the last, but with all the reading I have done on this topic it becomes very clear to me that "digital" filters are no different that "analog" ones, except for the fact that they are more profitable because they are more expensive. It is more of a marketing tool than any practical one.

 

[jwstl]

Also to those that may argue, putting a cheap piece of glass in front of an amazing (Nikkor) piece of glass.... yes you are entitled to this opinion, but at the same time, when you need a particular effect, you're happy to stick a polariser or ND filter etc in front of the lens... yet these filters are still made by the same company as the UV/clear filters, so where is the logic in that?

Simple. I only use a filter when it adds something of value to me. A polarizer does on occasion. A UV does not. In other words, I'm willing to sacrifice a bit to get the polarizing affect but I won't sacrifice something to get nothing in return. Again, in my shooting methods protection isn't a big concern. If I were shooting sports I'd consider it.

 

[Ruidoso Bill]

Interesting read on the impact of UV filters, click HERE

 

[STM]

Simple. I only use a filter when it adds something of value to me. A polarizer does on occasion. A UV does not. In other words, I'm willing to sacrifice a bit to get the polarizing affect but I won't sacrifice something to get nothing in return. Again, in my shooting methods protection isn't a big concern. If I were shooting sports I'd consider it.

Not trying to start a flame war or anything like that, far from it. but you see no value in protecting the front element of your lenses from dirt, sand, water, fingerprints or impact? I am not talking about putting some cheap, off brand garbage you get on Fleabay for $5 on the front of your lens, but a very high quality filter like Hoya HMC ($30 for a 52mm UV(0) ). I can't speak for the rest of you but I am ANAL about keeping the glass on my lenses clean, and I would rather have to replace a filter than the front element of my lens because it got damaged. In a pinch I would be MUCH more easily inclined to breathe on a filter and wipe it off with my t-shirt than I would EVER on the front element of one of my lenses, that is for sure!

 

[gusflores]

Perfect ideas about filters!

 

[Dave_W]

Interesting read on the impact of UV filters, click HERE

I wonder how simple clear optical filters would compare? To stop UV you have to use a layer of plastic or something that will block UV rays vs. optical filters that are simply a protective plain of high quality glass. With that in mind, most lenses have 7 to 9 slabs of glass already so it's hard to believe an additional high quality piece of glass would make a measurable difference.

 

[jwstl]

Not trying to start a flame war or anything like that, far from it. but you see no value in protecting the front element of your lenses from dirt, sand, water, fingerprints or impact? I am not talking about putting some cheap, off brand garbage you get on Fleabay for $5 on the front of your lens, but a very high quality filter like Hoya HMC ($30 for a 52mm UV(0) ). I can't speak for the rest of you but I am ANAL about keeping the glass on my lenses clean, and I would rather have to replace a filter than the front element of my lens because it got damaged. In a pinch I would be MUCH more easily inclined to breathe on a filter and wipe it off with my t-shirt than I would EVER on the front element of one of my lenses, that is for sure!

I don't see this a flame war; it's a worthwhile discussion on the merits of filters and lens protection with differences of opinions.

And, yes, I do see value in protecting the front element from the elements; we just have different ways of doing so. All the lenses I use have a hood. And I use them...always. When not in use the lens has a cap on it. Always. I keep a microfiber cloth in my bag and in my pocket for cleaning fingerprints. And I guess I don't put myself in situations where I drop the lens so impact isn't an issue.
It's much more important to protect the rear element as that is closer to the sensor/film and any scratches etc. would be more likely to show and affect IQ. As for filters, I only use the best, typically B+W polarizers, and I only when I want the effect. Otherwise, no filters. Even graduated ND filters are becoming a thing of the past. I can bracket my exposures and combine them in software to accomplish the same effect. That saves a lot of money, possible IQ changes, and weight when working outside.

 

[Rick M]

I use them for effect only also. Lens cap always on unless I am in the process of taking a picture. I would probably use one in a harsh element like salt/sand/dust, but only temporarily. If I were a pro shooting events I would probably use a filter, due to the continuous exposure, but for me they are not needed, cap is enough.

 

[KansanShooter]

Well now I am really confused.

 

[jwstl]

Well now I am really confused.

Sorry about that. Let's try to clear it up a bit. You say you will be shooting outdoors. What exactly? You also say you don't want to affect the image quality too much? What are you willing to spend to get good filters for each lens?

 

[Rick M]

Well now I am really confused.

That's because there is no single right answer. You are also talking about protecting a $100 lens. I think everyone here will agree they would not put a cheap filter in front of any lens. So are you willing to buy a good (somewhat expensive relative to the value of that lens) filter for that lens?

Some think you need it, some don't, now you have to decide having heard both arguments!

 

[KansanShooter]

Sorry about that. Let's try to clear it up a bit. You say you will be shooting outdoors. What exactly? You also say you don't want to affect the image quality too much? What are you willing to spend to get good filters for each lens?

Landscapes, wildlife, my kids t-ball games ect. And yes Im willing to spend good glass.