On UV Filters: Do you have it on?

everprentice

Senior Member
So UV Filters. I remember my dad always had a UV filter on his lenses that was in the day of film.

I noticed recently that a lot of people do use UV filters on their lenses for protection.

If you ask me, I DON'T. Why? Because it adds another element/medium that light has to go through before it gets into the sensor. This affects the properties of the light that we want to expose to. It also creates a myriad of problems when shooting with light sources in front of you.

Bottomline, I wouldn't want to put a relatively cheaper piece of glass in front of my well engineered pro-glass unless I want to achieve a certain effect.

What is your take on this?

==
I stumbled on this article on DPReview on the use of UV filters. For your reading pleasure.
 
Last edited:

randyspann

Senior Member
- I'm with you. One more glass element for light to pass through! I prefer a lens hood for a little more lens protection, even though it adds length to the lens.
 

crashton

Senior Member
I'm a filter user. No cheap filters for me & when the lighting is tricky off it comes. Guess I'm an old fart filter user. One day a filter saved a new lens from a flying piece of gravel. Filter dead, lens lived. I always use a lens hood too.
 

Steve B

Senior Member
High quality B+W UV filters on all of my lenses. They have saved one lens already. Filter shattered, lens undamaged. It's easy enough to remove them when desired. Cheap protection otherwise.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
While I don't own a UV filter I do use a CPL on my lenses probably 90% of the time. The Hoya HD's, specifically, are made of hardened glass that I know from experience is some seriously tough s--t (Go ahead... Ask me how I know). And while it's fine to talk about the possibility of shards of glass impacting the front lens element, how about the couple of times my front lens element was actually preserved because a filter took the full impact?

I've also never had a shot foiled by my using a filter. I suppose it could happen but it's never happened to ME. Maybe once I have that experience I'll reconsider my position but I value the practical over the hypothetical and so far that's what this argument is for me.

Lastly, I think if you mainly shoot in the comfort of your studio that's one thing... Come hang out with me in the desert for a couple days, though, and we'll see how much owl poop, Desert-Borne Schmutz, (that's the technical term), sand and crud collects on that precious front element of your expensive lens. It's pretty scary IMO and, personally, I like being being able to remove the filter, rinse it in the sink, and be all good to go and stuff but I also understand this is One of Those Things: different strokes for different folks and all that.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I think a CPL does really nice things for outdoor shooting in general, which is why I rarely shoot without one: a good CPL does a lot more than just give you a prettier blue sky. I think a CPL adds a certain, contrasty 'pop', or improved saturation, to outdoor shoots taken in full sun. Cloudy days, less so, but even then a good CPL can make dramatic clouds look even more dramatic.
...
 
Last edited:

Krs_2007

Senior Member
I use to swear by them, but noticed that quality of filter can impact the quality of the image. If you get them then buy a good one because you will notice a slight image degradation with the cheap ones.

If I was shooting in harsh elements then I would put one on, but most of the time is just the lens hood and I always use a strap to keep it secure and no UV filter.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Back in my film days, I religiously used filters for protection. And in all those years, not once did I ever scratch or damage one of them. And this was in the days before rigid petal hoods. Rubber floppy hoods were the norm.

With this epiphany, my glass now goes forth into the world naked. I do have a couple UV for when I know I'm going to get wet or dirty. But my lenses are nekkid 99.999999% of the time.

Filter rings are very thin, and usually not made of substantial material, so they get damaged very easy. Compare that to the barrel of your lens.

Filter glass is also very thin. Compare that to the front element of your lens. You really gonna try to say they're the same?

I've heard 'stories' of people claiming their filter 'saved' their lens. But the fact is.... and this is a fact.... unless you recreate the exact same instance without a filter and the lens does get damaged, one cannot make that claim. Period. A 'study of one' does not constitute a fact. It's no more than just conjecture. It really isn't a theory at that point. And until someone actually does that, claiming a filter saved your lens is just sheer, pure self-delusion.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I've heard 'stories' of people claiming their filter 'saved' their lens. But the fact is.... and this is a fact.... unless you recreate the exact same instance without a filter and the lens does get damaged, one cannot make that claim. Period. A 'study of one' does not constitute a fact. It's no more than just conjecture. It really isn't a theory at that point. And until someone actually does that, claiming a filter saved your lens is just sheer, pure self-delusion.
Wow... Touch a nerve?

I don't hear anyone claiming statistical certainty, certainly not from me. I related an experience from which I drew a conclusion and posed a question. The standards you quote are fine, assuming we're submitting an article for peer review; but for day-to-day decision making on something like, "Do I think using a filter on my camera is a good idea?" the standards of rigor, I think can be relaxed if ever so slightly. Calling it, "sheer, pure self-delusion" is just inflammatory rhetoric that really isn't serving you well. In my opinion.

...

...
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Wow... Touch a nerve?

I don't hear anyone claiming statistical certainty, certainly not from me. I related an experience from which I drew a conclusion and posed a question. The standards you quote are fine, assuming we're submitting an article for peer review; but for day-to-day decision making on something like, "Do I think using a filter on my camera is a good idea?" the standards of rigor, I think can be relaxed if ever so slightly. Calling it, "sheer, pure self-delusion" is just inflammatory rhetoric that really isn't serving you well. In my opinion.

...

...

Didn't strike a nerve at all. I was just responding to the OPs question, that's all. Sorry I state facts and not myths.

I once dropped a $40 HID light bulb off a 12-foot step ladder onto concrete. It didn't break. It just bounced around. I picked it up and put it in the fixture and it worked fine. Would you say I was delusional if I claimed that everyone can drop light bulbs with no fear of them breaking when dropped?
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Didn't strike a nerve at all. I was just responding to the OPs question, that's all. Sorry I state facts and not myths.

I once dropped a $40 HID light bulb off a 12-foot step ladder onto concrete. It didn't break. It just bounced around. I picked it up and put it in the fixture and it worked fine. Would you say I was delusional if I claimed that everyone can drop light bulbs with no fear of them breaking when dropped?
No, because using words like "myth" and "delusional" in this context would be ridiculous.

...
 

Mike D90

Senior Member
I finally decided to do without them. I found I am careful enough with my lenses that a lens hood, outdoors, is enough protection and I no longer have to consider the quality of the filter or another element of glass/plastic in front of my lens.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I can't buy a lens anywhere (in a store) without the sales pitch. They must have a nice profit margin! Scare tactics have always been great marketing tools :). I used to get into it, now I just say I already have that size; avoiding the shock on their face that I just don't want one.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
I use a CP on my lenses....Sometimes I take them off, and sometimes I leave them on, and sometimes I forget to take them off, and sometimes I forget to put them on.
Then again I'm just having fun taking pictures. Sometimes my pictures actually turn into photographs, and it is always because of the filter. That's a fact!:p
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
I keep them on my lenses for protection. It has saved a lens for me when I went through the doorway and my camera swung forward and caught the corner of the brick going in the door. Sure it was my own carelessness, but I didn't have to buy a new lens.

The caveat to me using one is when the quality of the image is paramount and I don't want anything taking away from the optics of the lens. Then I remove it as I did for the shoot last weekend.

But, everyone has their own thinking and I don't think of any of them as wrong. Just preference.
 
Last edited:

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Lens glass is pretty bloody tough, and as years go by more coatings help strengthen it. UV/NC filters are just simple, dinky glass with perhaps 1 dinky little coating. Does anyone have a story of running a front of a lens into something with it breaking/not breaking, because it's natural for that filter to break and it probably does not lessen the impact all that much.
 
Top