UV Filters, Do They Really Protect You?

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P0CLPTd6Bds" width="728" height="409" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>From Steve Perry</strong></p>
<p>So, do you need a UV filter for your camera or not? In this video, I put UV filters to the test.</p>
<p>We find out if UV filters REALLY protect your lens with a series of smash tests (yes, I bust of a bunch of lenses and filters) – with some REALLY surprising results!</p>
<p>We’ll also examine…</p>
<ul>
<li>If it’s necessary to use them to filter out UV haze with a digital camera.</li>
<li>If UV filters hurt image quality.</li>
<li>When you should ALWAYS remove them.</li>
<li>If they really are cheap insurance.</li>
<li>And so much more…</li>
</ul>
<p>This is one video every photographer needs to see! Forget theories and anecdotal evidence. Watch this video and see EVERYTHING about UV filters put to the test (plus hey, it’s fun to watch lenses get smashed)! You may be in for a few surprises!</p>

 

[wopbv4]

Hi Steve,

thanks! Very interesting and as you say, unexpected results.
What about the "weather and dust sealing" claim that is often quoted e.g 16-35 F2.8 II needs UV filter to improve weather sealing

 

[Random Orbits]

I use filters for all my lenses. Not for the protective aspect shown in the video, but for ease of cleaning and resale value. I usually don't bring a full cleaning kit with me, so I'd much rather clean the filter rather than the front element with whatever is at hand. Sometimes it's salt spray, sometimes it's dust, and sometimes it's sand. On my more heavily used lenses, the filters have developed pinprick-sized coating scratches with repeated "cleanings" in the field. I've had my camera/lens come off the BR strap unexpected a couple times (with and without hood attached), and both times, the front landed in wet muddy water. In one case, the filter came off and I continued shooting. In the other, the filter was run under water and cleaned with paper towels. This is even more important when using something like the 16-35 f/4 IS, where the front is not sealed.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

The use of a protective filter is really an individual choice.

I still use clear filters on my lenses when I am outside. When shooting inside, I usually take it off. I really have not experienced any appreciable degradation of the image.

Others prefer not to use protective filters.

It is all up to what the individual wants to do. I don't think there is any "ultimate" answer that applies to everyone.

 

[unfocused]

I use filters for all my lenses. Not for the protective aspect shown in the video, but for ease of cleaning and resale value. I usually don't bring a full cleaning kit with me, so I'd much rather clean the filter rather than the front element with whatever is at hand.

Yeah, I'm a filter guy as well. Intellectually, I know that the front element of a lens is much more durable today than it used to be and I also know that a front element can be pretty badly scratched without it affecting the image. But, if I'm going to use my breath and a handkerchief to clean something off, I'd rather it be a filter than a front element.

 

[tolusina]

At 7:36;
"...Let's go ahead and smash some stuff.."!! LOLZ!!

Mr. Perry put fair effort into his test procedure and execution, a not insignificant expense as well.
I think a very well done video from start to end, I quite appreciate the bias confirmation.



.

 

[tron]

I use filters for all my lenses. Not for the protective aspect shown in the video, but for ease of cleaning and resale value. I usually don't bring a full cleaning kit with me, so I'd much rather clean the filter rather than the front element with whatever is at hand.

Yeah, I'm a filter guy as well. Intellectually, I know that the front element of a lens is much more durable today than it used to be and I also know that a front element can be pretty badly scratched without it affecting the image. But, if I'm going to use my breath and a handkerchief to clean something off, I'd rather it be a filter than a front element.

+1

 

[GammyKnee]

That's a really good little video; the fast-paced, no-nonsense presentation style kept me watching pretty much through to the end.

I do have protective (clear rather than UV) filters, which I tend to use when shooting in adverse weather conditions (and in one past case, to slow down dust accumulation in my EF-S 17-55 before I went full frame). I've never really seen them as a worthwhile protection against knocks/bumps etc. but even I was surprised to see just how fragile they were in the test.

Glad to see the advice about hoods though - that's the one thing I always use when the situation permits.

 

[AlanF]

There's one thing that this review doesn't consider and that is material hardness.

In terms of material hardness, glass is rated stronger than steel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness#Intermediate_hardness

That means it is easier for glass to scratch steel than for steel to scratch glass. This accounts for why the lenses are almost never scratched. A better test of the strength of lens glass to scratching would be to replace the steel rod with rocks of various size made from, say granite (what you typically find in national parks such as Yosemite), on the lens and see what happens. And similarly, simulate what happens when you drop a lens on uneven, rocky, ground rather than a flat surface such as the floor of a garage.

The breaking of the filters is a different strength test - tensile strength:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength

I think technically the breaking of a filter depends on "toughness" - the ability of a material to absorb energy and plastically deform without fracturing - rather than "tensile strength", which refers to stretching or pulling.

 

[Random Orbits]

...
On my more heavily used lenses, the filters have developed pinprick-sized coating scratches with repeated "cleanings" in the field.
...

Note that the glass the filter is made out of is not the same as the front lens element. As nearly everyone will be aware, not all glass is the same. Thus it is entirely possible that the filter is made of a more easily scratched glass then the front element of a lens.

I've had my camera/lens come off the BR strap unexpected a couple times (with and without hood attached), and both times, the front landed in wet muddy water. In one case, the filter came off and I continued shooting. In the other, the filter was run under water and cleaned with paper towels. This is even more important when using something like the 16-35 f/4 IS, where the front is not sealed.

Find me text on Canon's website where they say that their lenses are waterproof. Any of them. Waterproof is not the same as water resistant.

Read what I wrote next time. I'm talking about coating scratches. You get some grit on the lens, and you rub it off and it WILL get scratched.

And where did I say waterproof? Read it again, I didn't. The watery mud was about an inch deep. I did not say submerged... now did I?

 

[Random Orbits]

I use filters for all my lenses. Not for the protective aspect shown in the video, but for ease of cleaning and resale value. I usually don't bring a full cleaning kit with me, so I'd much rather clean the filter rather than the front element with whatever is at hand.

Yeah, I'm a filter guy as well. Intellectually, I know that the front element of a lens is much more durable today than it used to be and I also know that a front element can be pretty badly scratched without it affecting the image. But, if I'm going to use my breath and a handkerchief to clean something off, I'd rather it be a filter than a front element.

+1

The tester also stated that the lens can be repaired, but for scratches and not worrying about wiping off the front of the lens, replacing a scratched filter is much cheaper than replacing the front element.

 

[chromophore]

I don't use filters to protect my lenses from impact. That a filter is used for impact protection is the misconception that is assumed in this video.

I use filters on some of my lenses because depending on their construction, it is not feasible or convenient to clean them in the field. Some lenses have deeply recessed front elements, and crevices that are really hard to get clean. I don't want to waste time and energy trying to get my lenses clean every few weeks. So I put a filter on, and forget about it.

Lenses I keep a filter on: 85L.

Lenses I don't keep a filter on: 35L, 100/2.8 macro IS.

Lenses I would keep a filter on if I owned them: 50L, 135L.

When I find that the filter will produce ghosting or unacceptable flare, I remove it temporarily and replace it when I'm done. This happens even with the best multicoated filters--it is unavoidable in certain situations, so it is pointless to buy a super expensive filter.

I also always use a lens hood. A good lens hood will protect the lens from frontal impact more than any filter, and it even offers some protection from a filter shattering.

Anyone with any sense at all knows that a curved, thick piece of glass is stronger than a thin, flat piece of glass, no matter its molecular composition, so long as both are properly tempered (which all optical glass is). The front element is strong not because it's special, but because it is dome-shaped and typically quite thicker than a filter.

 

[AdjustedInCamera]

I thought this video was great. Any attempt to investigate something systematically like this means we can take the conclusions or know why we are rejecting them.

Slightly OT, but one thing I was told was that you should always remove filters for taking pictures of the Northern Lights. The reason I was given is that the coatings on the filters absorb light at the same green colour the Lights are. Taking pictures of the Lights with a filter on is supposed to give a halo effect which upsets the image. Does this make sense and has anyone tested this?

Also, when people are doing astro work, do they take the filters off?

 

[arthurbikemad]

I use filters to protect against minor damage, swirling wet dust and sand around on the front of your lens while out shooting will scratch the front in the end, personally I'd rather do that on my filter than the glass of my lens.

I do think about IQ but still choose to run a filter for above reasons.

 

[bedford]

I use filters to protect against minor damage, swirling wet dust and sand around on the front of your lens while out shooting will scratch the front in the end, personally I'd rather do that on my filter than the glass of my lens.

I do think about IQ but still choose to run a filter for above reasons.

+1


Same for me. Usually I don't buy the most expensive filter (but also not the cheapest ones).

 

[Pookie]

This topic is about as blown out as DR and DXO scores... aka The proverbial dead horse.

 

[chromophore]

I use filters to protect against minor damage, swirling wet dust and sand around on the front of your lens while out shooting will scratch the front in the end, personally I'd rather do that on my filter than the glass of my lens.

From this we must assume that you do shoot in those conditions.

Therefore your filter must experience some rather nasty conditions.

The posted video demonstrates that filters scratch more easily than lens front elements.

How often do you replace the filter due to wind blown material damage?

More often than replacing a front element due to such damage, since the latter never happens to me as a result. End of story.

 

[Random Orbits]

I use filters for all my lenses. Not for the protective aspect shown in the video, but for ease of cleaning and resale value. I usually don't bring a full cleaning kit with me, so I'd much rather clean the filter rather than the front element with whatever is at hand.

Yeah, I'm a filter guy as well. Intellectually, I know that the front element of a lens is much more durable today than it used to be and I also know that a front element can be pretty badly scratched without it affecting the image. But, if I'm going to use my breath and a handkerchief to clean something off, I'd rather it be a filter than a front element.

I can't help but wonder if that does more damage to the filter than it does to the lens's front element.

Or to put it differently, with the concern people have for the most external piece of glass being perfectly smooth and filters being proven to be rather fragile, should filters be replaced annually (well, depending on use) to ensure that all of the wear and tear that comes from fingers, handkerchiefs, sand, etc, doesn't persist?

People are writing about "put the filter on because of sand/mud/etc" but having seen how fragile the filters are, how can keeping the same one for a long period of time be justified? All of those microscopic nicks that people are concerned about in their front lens element (that may not occur due to it being rather hard) are more likely to occur with the filter.

Let's see. Filters are thinner than most front elements and breaker before most front elements, but they are not fragile. Many of the coatings that are on the front element are also on filters. If they can scratch off the filter, they will also scratch off the lens element. Replacing filters is typically much cheaper than replacing the front element of a lens. I don't have to pay shipping/insurance to/from the repair facility and I don't have to pay hundreds of dollars for the cost of the front element and labor. I'm not talking about a $100 filter on a $100 lens. I don't use a filter on any of my EOS-M lenses (not used in harsh conditions anyway) nor the EF 40. It also affects resale value. People are willing to pay a price premium for lenses that are in cleaner or pristine condition. It is an indication that the owner takes care of his own equipment.

 

[privatebydesign]

Purely anecdotal from shooting full and part time since 1978, in all those years I have used UV filters a minimal amount of times, certainly less than 5%, indeed I only own one 77mm because it fit my three f2.8 zooms. I have shot in deserts, mountains and a lot of times at sea, I do not baby my gear but generally I am not a clutz and in all that time I have broken lenses seven times. I have never scratched or damaged a front element.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Although the test did not really simulate a lens / camera drop, which usually hits a corner of the lens, I do agree with the general findings.

A UV filter can prevent a lens filter thread from bending, assuming the drop was survivable. If a lens happens to hit squarely, then the impact is on the outside ring of the lens, so the strength of the glass is not as big a factor as the lens construction.

A hood will absorb some of the energy from a drop as well as usually keeping the glass from direct contact, so its more likely to survive.

The cost of front element replacement varies due to the fact that some elements are just clear glass, and some are ground optical elements.

In any event, the fact that a lens appears to survive a impact really means little, since internal damage is a likely possibility.