UV Filters

I guess this is a subjective question, but I am going to give it a shot anyway.

I want to add a layer of full-time protection to my lenses and was going to use UV filters to do so. Yet I have read this is not necessary and that UV filters can actually decrease photo quality.

So do you use UV filters, or any filters for full-time protection?

Your going to stir up a hornets nest

Its a descision you will have to make there will be yes and no answers,the reason i do is because i got a sticky something on the front element of a new lens dont know if it was pollen or what but it marked the coating.

Asked and answered. 84 million times already.

I prefer to use one mostly because I shoot a lot of daytime shots here on the edge of the desert in California. I like what it adds to blue sky and cloud definition - and a UV filter gives you good lens protection. As a newbie photographer, the protection factor outweighs any miniscule image-loss. Once I start shooting gallery-quality photos, I may reconsider. My $0.02.

Once again I will toss down the gauntlet and set forth the challenge.

Does anyone have proof (yes, proof) that a filter actually, truly and honestly saved their lens? And don't drag out the worn-out "Well, I say I did" response. A study of half an incidence is not proof.

So you busted up a filter and proudly proclaim, "Yes! The filter prevented damage to my lens!" OK, prove it. Don't just think it did... P R O V E it.

How do you do that? Simple. Remove the trashed filter and subject the lens to the same incident. If the lens gets damaged, then you've proved it. If it doesn't, then it's not true.

Now, there's two problems with this. First, who in their right might is gonna do it again with their lens? Nobody, right? Of course not. You'd be nuts to. And I don't blame you. I wouldn't either, but I can't anyway since my lenses don't have filters to begin with.

The other problem, in order to produce this proof, is to reproduce the incident exactly. Not roughly or approximately. EXACTLY. And this is impossible to do when you accidently bang up a filter.

But here's a couple facts: The glass in filters is very thin compared to the front element of a camera lens. So it cracks much easier. The thin ring it's sitting in is not as beefy as the barrel of a lens either. So a little bump that folds the edge of the filter or cracks the glass would easily be rebuffed by the sheer mass of the lens itself and remain unscathed.

So until someone steps forth with actual empirical evidence that a filter saved a lens, I'll continue to discount it as a myth and urban legend.

Does anyone have proof (yes, proof) that a filter actually, truly and honestly saved their lens?

Click to expand...

A better question would be. "Does anyone have proof (yes,proof) that a filter actually, truly and honestly damaged their lens when it broke?"

You can't answer either question without doing a test in a controlled way.

Blacktop said:

[/COLOR]
A better question would be. "Does anyone have proof (yes,proof) that a filter actually, truly and honestly damaged their lens when it broke?"

You can't answer either question without doing a test in a controlled way.

Click to expand...

It's been known to happen. Either the shattered glass scratches the front element, or the lens is damaged removing the filter.

I for one never consider my filters for protecting the lens against physical damage,they protect them from air born contaminates,mucky water splashes at a couple of places i use,sand on windy days when ime on the beach,i would just rather clean a filter than a front lens element.
But as i say you have to make your own decisions on things like this

480sparky said:

OK, prove it. Don't just think it did... P R O V E it.

Click to expand...

I don't have empirical data for most of the decisions I make in life and I doubt you do either. I, like most people, get through life drawing conclusions based on a logical inference. So continue to crow on about empirical evidence all you want, I think for most people it's pretty much a moot point.

As for the glass used in filters, not all of it is cheap, thin and flimsy. The glass used in some of the better filters is made by Schott Glass a German based company that's probably forgotten more about glass than we'll ever hope to know about it. Many of these better made filters are layered, tempered and chemically hardened. See: Corning Gorilla Glass for but one such example.

As to the utility of a UV filter, digital cameras are not affected by UV light as were film cameras so we, as digital photographers don't need to worry about UV light in particular. Now if I'm going to put a filter on my lens it's going to be doing something while it's there which why I use a Circular Polarizing filter. I like the effect the filter gives and it keeps the front element clean. The Hoya HD CPL's are nice because they transmit far more light, and whereas most multi-coated filters are just about impossible to get completely clean, the Hoya's clean up with ease using a microfiber rag.

So, in short, I don't see a problem using a filter to protect the front element. Arguments both for and against them can be made. I've never had a shot ruined by the presence of the CPL I typically use when shooting outdoors or even adversely affected by it. I suppose if it did do something I didn't like I'd just fix it in post'. I don't use a lens cap when my camera is deployed because I don't want to have to fumble with removing it every time a shot presents itself; sometimes speed is of the essence and I can "shoot through" my filter, but not my lens cap. Lens hoods I fully support, both for their intended purpose of shielding the lens and preventing flaring and so forth, but also as a "lens guard" you can "shoot through".

Just my thought's on the matter...

have 'em, rarely use 'em

Fear sells, great marketing tool

I've be sitting on the fence on this topic, with a filter on one lens and nothing on another. Oh not because of any testing or such. I just never bought any filters, and would remove any scratched up filter from a lens I bought. Lol
But I see the points of both sides, and I just haven't been able to make up my mind enough to spend the money on good quality filters. Lol
But if I had them, I'd likely use them unless they became annoying anyway! Lol

This topic comes up time and time again.

And the answer is, it's like Marmite.
Either you love it or you hate it.

Or in this case, either you use them or you don't.

The pros and cons are splattered all over this forum and the internet, so the real question is - if you put one one and notice NO difference, and you like the idea of potentially avoiding a scratch on your lens front element because there was another piece of glass in front of it... then go for it.
If however, it reduces image quality noticably, or you just don't mind if something scratches your front lens element, then you don't need one.

Also, you get what you pay for
£5 filters are of low quality glass, probably cheap not well coated, cured etc.
Hoya, B&W etc are amongst the favourites and you get good reliable glass.

As for emperical evidence of whether it helps or not.
Someone give me their lens, and I'll provide the filter - I'll happily conduct some controlled experiments on the pros and cons of having or not having one on

§am said:

...............As for emperical evidence of whether it helps or not.
Someone give me their lens, and I'll provide the filter - I'll happily conduct some controlled experiments on the pros and cons of having or not having one on

Click to expand...

You're on. With one caveat.... Describe the process you intend to use.

I've never used a filter for protection and I've never had a lens damaged or scratched in any way over about 40 years. I think it comes down to how you handle your gear. I've seen many photographers (mostly amateur) treat their gear like crap and not even use lens caps. Accidents do happen, but I'm not convinced a filter is going to help. For about the cost of one good filter, you can get a rider on your homeowners policy which will cover accidental damage and loss.

Most noobs treat their gear like it's made of pure gold and crystal. They can't stand minor nicks and wear. They want it to look new for 20 years, thinking it will be worth a fortune when they go to sell it then.

Most noobs treat their gear like it's made of pure gold and crystal.

Click to expand...

Not everyone is made of money. To some people the price of a new DSLR and a nice lens is a lot of money.
Not everyone can afford to change their shit like underwear.

I use them when I'm hiking, for one reason. I carry my camera on a BlackRapid Sport strap, and occasionally it bounces around. A normal lens cap will pop off occasionally, so I screw a UV filter on the lens to protect it instead. When I want to shoot, I just unscrew the filter and shoot. I don't like keeping the filter on when I shoot because of the negative effect on quality, however small it may be.

Sorry I brought this up

I kinda figured it was a 50/50 split.

Next topic I start will be less controversial - promise!

Flash Pot said:

Sorry I brought this up

I kinda figured it was a 50/50 split.

Next topic I start will be less controversial - promise!

Click to expand...

For your next topic, I'd suggest the following:

- Jpeg is as good as RAW
- Good photographers don't need to do Post Processing and it is over-done.
- Film is better than Digital
- Old lenses are better than new.
- zooms are better than primes.
- Why do all my Nikons have spots like the D600?
- Ken Rockwell is brilliant.

I'm sure I missed a few, but these are all equally low key topics to explore