Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!

[munzzzzzzz]

If you believe that filters protect your lens from impacts, you need to look on Youtube at the videos of people intentionally abusing lenses. What you'll find is that it takes a LOT of impact to even scratch the outer element of a lens (there is at least one where a guy is hitting it with a hammer with no apparent damage). Try doing that to the extremely thin piece of glass in your filter and you can expect it to shatter.

If you're talking about protecting it from dust and dirt, I can see that to a degree, but as others have pointed you should be able to plan and prepare for those scenarios and use them as necessary.

Under ideal shooting conditions, even a cheap filter may not affect IQ much. It's when you get into less than ideal situations, i.e where there is a potential for lens flare, where filters can really start to affect IQ. And buying a B+W filter doesn't automatically mean it won't affect IQ. If you want to use one want to minimize the effect on IQ, you should really use a multi-coated filter (look for "MRC" on B+W filters) but you'll also find that they get expensive quickly.

At the end of the day, you should really always be using a lens hood, both to protect from lens flare and to protect your lens, and if you're doing that in most scenarios a filter isn't going to help much more. However, if you're NOT using your lens hood and ARE using a filter (especially a cheap one), there's a decent chance that at times IQ will be negatively impacted.

 

[bdunbar79]

If you believe that filters protect your lens from impacts, you need to look on Youtube at the videos of people intentionally abusing lenses. What you'll find is that it takes a LOT of impact to even scratch the outer element of a lens (there is at least one where a guy is hitting it with a hammer with no apparent damage). Try doing that to the extremely thin piece of glass in your filter and you can expect it to shatter.

If you're talking about protecting it from dust and dirt, I can see that to a degree, but as others have pointed you should be able to plan and prepare for those scenarios and use them as necessary.

Under ideal shooting conditions, even a cheap filter may not affect IQ much. It's when you get into less than ideal situations, i.e where there is a potential for lens flare, where filters can really start to affect IQ. And buying a B+W filter doesn't automatically mean it won't affect IQ. If you want to use one want to minimize the effect on IQ, you should really use a multi-coated filter (look for "MRC" on B+W filters) but you'll also find that they get expensive quickly.

At the end of the day, you should really always be using a lens hood, both to protect from lens flare and to protect your lens, and if you're doing that in most scenarios a filter isn't going to help much more. However, if you're NOT using your lens hood and ARE using a filter (especially a cheap one), there's a decent chance that at times IQ will be negatively impacted.

I use all B+W MRC UV filters, ND filters, and CP filters. I've shot out in the sun routinely and have noticed no lens flare or any IQ problems.

 

[RLPhoto]

If you believe that filters protect your lens from impacts, you need to look on Youtube at the videos of people intentionally abusing lenses. What you'll find is that it takes a LOT of impact to even scratch the outer element of a lens (there is at least one where a guy is hitting it with a hammer with no apparent damage). Try doing that to the extremely thin piece of glass in your filter and you can expect it to shatter.

If you're talking about protecting it from dust and dirt, I can see that to a degree, but as others have pointed you should be able to plan and prepare for those scenarios and use them as necessary.

Under ideal shooting conditions, even a cheap filter may not affect IQ much. It's when you get into less than ideal situations, i.e where there is a potential for lens flare, where filters can really start to affect IQ. And buying a B+W filter doesn't automatically mean it won't affect IQ. If you want to use one want to minimize the effect on IQ, you should really use a multi-coated filter (look for "MRC" on B+W filters) but you'll also find that they get expensive quickly.

At the end of the day, you should really always be using a lens hood, both to protect from lens flare and to protect your lens, and if you're doing that in most scenarios a filter isn't going to help much more. However, if you're NOT using your lens hood and ARE using a filter (especially a cheap one), there's a decent chance that at times IQ will be negatively impacted.

I use all B+W MRC UV filters, ND filters, and CP filters. I've shot out in the sun routinely and have noticed no lens flare or any IQ problems.

+1 Shot into the sun. Haven't seen any extra flare that wouldn't already be there from the lens anyway.

 

[Canon-F1]

this discussion is so old i can´t read about it anymore.
all the same arguments over and over.

i mean honest.... why asking this question.. just google it!!
there are a billion threads about it and everything was said before.

 

[bdunbar79]

this discussion is so old i can´t read about it anymore.
all the same arguments over and over.

i mean honest.... why asking this question.. just google it!!
there are a billion threads about it and everything was said before.

If you don't like the topic, you don't have to click on the thread and read the posts?? That's the beauty of this website. Someone can start any thread they want and get helpful, meaningful answers.

 

[Random Orbits]

At the end of the day, you should really always be using a lens hood, both to protect from lens flare and to protect your lens, and if you're doing that in most scenarios a filter isn't going to help much more. However, if you're NOT using your lens hood and ARE using a filter (especially a cheap one), there's a decent chance that at times IQ will be negatively impacted.

Except that UWA lens hoods are so shallow and wide that they don't afford much protection at all.

 

[adhocphotographer]

Kinda what most people say... I have them on to protects lens in less than ideal situations such as in crowds or to complete weather sealing... As long as they are good quality filters you probably won't notice any degradation of IQ.

Don't stress about it, either way, and just enjoy your equipment for what it was designed for... Shooting!

 

[@!ex]

Kinda what most people say... I have them on to protects lens in less than ideal situations such as in crowds or to complete weather sealing... As long as they are good quality filters you probably won't notice any degradation of IQ.

Don't stress about it, either way, and just enjoy your equipment for what it was designed for... Shooting!

+1

 

[MaddScientiskt]

To do or not to do....it just comes down to personal preference and anal retentiveness at the end of the day ;D Like many have stated, I just use my filters when I know its going to be a non-ideal situation. For probably 90% of my shooting, I don't use a filter. Truthfully I probably wouldn't notice the filter on there, but I KNOW its on there and I don't want to risk the difference in image quality (because there will be one, just may not see it, hence the anal retentiveness ). Most who are enthusiast baby their glass anyway. Some pro's do too. I'm guilty of it during the first month or so. Know your habits and how you handle your equipment. If you are rough on your $1000 lenses use it, if not don't. Definitely a personal call there. It doesn't make you any more or less a photographer for using it though.

Have fun and shoot!....Spray and pray not recommended

 

[robbymack]

this is probably thread count 2,867,985,345 on the internet regarding this very topic. It's all been said before, you're either a filter guy, a sometimes filter guy, or a no way in hell filter guy. To each his own. Personally I've never seen the alledged image degredation some folks speak of when using a filter, I've also not thought taking a hammer to the front of my lens is a way to prove filters are worthless either. All that being said I'm a always filter guy, I figure maybe it provides a little extra protection, if it does, fine, if it doesn't, well it helps me sleep better at night.

 

[Phenix205]

B+W F-pro 010 MRC on all L lenses plus the 50 f1.4 which I love to death. No filter on other non-L lenses including the shorty forty whose front element is small enough for an easy cleaning with a LensPen. In general, if a lens is $400 or less, I would not bother "protecting" it with a filter.

 

[V8Beast]

I find that the lens cap does an extraordinary job of protecting the lens. For the stuff I shoot, circular polarizing filters are almost a must. That said, I avoid using filters unless absolutely necessary. IMHO, the best filter is no filter, even if you're using a high-dollar filter that boasts negligible degradation in image quality.

Like everything else in photography, it's a tradeoff. If my subject requires a long shutter speed in the middle of the day, then I have to bust out a 1.8 neutral density filter to darken the ambient light by six stops. Yeah it might degrade the optics a tad, but it's still a heck of a lot better than shooting a subject at 1/30 of a second when I really wanted to use a 2 second exposure.

 

[elflord]

I looked at my friend and he said he agreeded with him and that he never used filters. He told me that you truly can get a better quality image without using UV filters...

Guys? Opinions?

You'll get plenty of opinions, but this question will not be resolved in this (or any other) thread.

The only reason I bother with filters is that if I ever have to resell the lenses, I'd rather not explain to the buyers that the lens has coating nicks or hairline scratches even if they have absolutely no effect on image quality.

Lensrentals had an article where they discussed this and showed some tests which indicate how much (or how little) difference it makes:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust

 

[crasher8]

Certain times of the year I find myself in locations with a lot of dust. I'd much rather wipe my B+W with a Leica cloth than my lens and it's precious coating. I have filters on all lenses except my pancake.

 

[Richard8971]

Wow, thank you everyone who took the time to give me your thoughts. I don't have high end filters so I think for most shoots I will leave them off. Granted I won't throw them away either, I'll keep them around just in case.

Thanks again everyone!

D

 

[helpful]

A UV filter certainly has a small effect on image quality. 11 years ago when I was still a photojournalist, I carried my camera around my neck with no lens cap and no filter for thousands of hours. [Lens caps have kept me from getting more pictures that you could imagine, so I have a very personal hatred for them.] Only a few times did I bash the lens into something accidentally. And never did I damage the lens. The only time a lens was ever damaged was when it was supposedly safely in its case with the lens cap on, and the lens cap was bumped off somehow and it scratched against other things in my briefcase.

The solution I use now is to never use lens caps or filters. I do use hoods, most of them permanently taped into place on my lenses, and in my case I always keep the lens hood end of the lens up against the sidewall of its compartment.

There is information about coatings that says "99.99%" transmission, etc. That is only talking about a specific component of the effect on transmission of the light through its path to the sensor, caused by that layer of lens coating. The entire result of even the most ideal filter is usually at most 97% transmission. That's negligible, certainly much less than even 1/3rd of a stop. But definitely it is not the same as having no effect at all.

I agree with the comments about the irrelevance of lens dust mentioned above. People tend to clean their lenses far too often and actually end up damaging them.

 

[Razor2012]

B+W all the way. After spending 2 or 3 grand (or more) on a lens, I just dread thinking about something getting on that beautiful L glass. I really don't want to ever have to touch that pristine surface.

 

[Sony]

B+W all the way. After spending 2 or 3 grand (or more) on a lens, I just dread thinking about something getting on that beautiful L glass. I really don't want to ever have to touch that pristine surface.

Strongly agree! I rather clean up the dirts on filter than touch lens's surface.

 

[rahkshi007]

I am the one who use UV filter.. but i only use B+W and Hoya HD.. there are a few reason i use UV filter:
1) Those top quality filter has coating which is 10 times easier to clean than the glass of lens, even L lens.
2) I am using Crumpler 7 million on my shooting and traveling, it need to put 4 lens and 1 body and 1 flash: 24-70 2.8L, 17-40 f4L, 85mm f1.2II, 50mmf1.4 5dm2, 600ex-rt .. there is no more space for me to put those hoods, so most of the time i do not use hood..
3) with UV filter, i can switch my lens faster as i don use lens cap anymore, as those high quality filter does not scratch easily: all lens just squeeze into my bag without cap if i having photoshoot with model..

the disadvantage of UV filter : u lost just a little of sharpness and contrast even though it is B+W or Hoya HD.. only noticeable if u compare both image at 100% scale.

 

[Pitbullo]

I use lens hood for protection, UV filter has no place in my bag. Polarizer and ND, yes, UV, no.