UV Filters, Do They Really Protect You?

[Hjalmarg1]

That's a really good little video; I do have protective with UV filter all my lenses. I never saw them as a real protection against knocks/bumps etc. and that's the reason I normally put the hoods on.
To be honest, UV filters have saved two lenses from serious damages after falling to ground.
Recently I have purchased B+W Pro Nano filters and Hoya HD filters that are more scratch resistant, easier to clean and better light transmission.

 

[privatebydesign]

That's a really good little video; I do have protective with UV filter all my lenses. I never saw them as a real protection against knocks/bumps etc. and that's the reason I normally put the hoods on.
To be honest, UV filters have saved two lenses from serious damages after falling to ground.
Recently I have purchased B+W Pro Nano filters and Hoya HD filters that are more scratch resistant, easier to clean and better light transmission.

I doubt that, particularly after watching the video..............

 

[Maximilian]

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.

+1000

If someone would want REAL impact protection they would need a roll cage.
And that'll have too much effect on the IQ

So to me this vid is useless. Sorry.

I see the use of protection filters as a scratch protection and easy cleaning.
To protect lens front element, lens thread, and coatings against light hits, scratching and dirt/spray/fingerprints but only maybe l ight drop.

I two times droped my equipment from less than 1 meter.
Both times the filter got damaged and had to be replaced.
Both times i was really happy that the dent was in the filter thread (front) and not in the lens thread.
Otherwise it would have needed repair to use filters again.

 

[siegsAR]

Somebody here must've remembered during the film days at the early years when the uv filter was just released.
What was its "main" purpose? Or rather the 1st talking point at that time it was released to the market.

I would like to know, thank you.

 

[Maui5150]

May be the biggest idiot on the face of the earth. What a complete waste.

I use filters to protect the lens surface from scratches, nicks and sometimes I have been in some semi hostile environments like color runs.

Seriously. How hard is it to look at a front element and see how thick the glass is and then a filter and see how thin the glass is and not know that the filter will have a lower breaking point?

Now what would have been useful if this guy had any clue, would have been to test the SCRATCH resistance of a filter versus a lens (i.e. does a lens have more scratch resistance as well as testing for dust, water and other elements (does a filter provide better weather sealing)

 

[Random Orbits]

Wrong. Watch the video. The filters scratch in situations where the lens's front element does not. Actual physical experimentation does not back up that statement.

Yes, Dilbert, watch the video. It is an impact test, not a scratch resistance test. I says nothing about coating toughness, and coatings are not inherently tough. We're not talking about scratching the underlying glass, we're talking about the coatings. Go to LensAuthority and see how many used lenses they sell that have coating scratches on the front element. It happens all the time. There would be a lot less scratches if filters were used. And the cost of replacing a front element is still often much more costly than filter.

 

[siegsAR]

Somebody here must've remembered during the film days at the early years when the uv filter was just released.
What was its "main" purpose? Or rather the 1st talking point at that time it was released to the market.

I would like to know, thank you.

Watch the video. It is explained (with a good demonstration) early on.

Already did, probably watched this ahead most of you here. I subbed to Steve last year.

But that doesn't really answer my question. I was looking for someone from here that can tell me about it personally.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

What I don't understand is why do people who choose not to use a protective filter feel it necessary to try to convince other people not to use protective filters?

If you wanna use a protective filter, great
If you don't wanna use a protective filter, great

 

[privatebydesign]

Now what would have been useful if this guy had any clue, would have been to test the SCRATCH resistance of a filter versus a lens (i.e. does a lens have more scratch resistance as well as testing for dust, water and other elements (does a filter provide better weather sealing)

The lens elements are much more scratch resistant than filters, I don't have a single cleaning mark or swirl on any of my front elements despite the fact they have been 'cleaned' hundreds, if not thousands of times, my UV filter does have cleaning marks.

Regarding 'weather sealing', that was the main reason I got mine, the 16-35 f2.8 instructions specifically state a filter is needed to complete weather sealing so in particularly harsh and wet situations I'd use it mainly on the 16-35, very rarely on the 24-70 and never on the 70-200, all three front elements look the same, well the 16-35 f2.8 did until I sold it!

 

[privatebydesign]

What I don't understand is why do people who choose not to use a protective filter feel it necessary to try to convince other people not to use protective filters?

If you wanna use a protective filter, great
If you don't wanna use a protective filter, great

I'm not, what I do try to do is illustrate that the reasoning people use for 'choosing' might well not be sound. I have no issue with people using, or not, 'protective' filters, but do so from a basis of sound information. My anecdotal evidence strongly suggests UV filters do not need to be used as 'protection', but if they are that use does have as many negatives as positives.

 

[Maximilian]

...
I see the use of protection filters as a scratch protection and easy cleaning.

As per the video, filter glass scratches more easily than lens glass. Filters are also often bigger (surface area of the glass is larger), requiring more effort to clean than many front elements.

Oh, dilbert! : : :

Even you should be able to understand that I do not want to protect the filter but the front element.
And I am quite sure that you are.
If the filter gets scratched: So be it! Replace it!
If the front element has to be repaired or replaced, you can get several high quality filters for the same money instead.
Okay?

To protect lens front element, lens thread, and coatings against light hits, scratching and dirt/spray/fingerprints but only maybe light drop.

Since you've only changed the filter when the lens has fallen and damaged the thread it is therefore apparent that scratching/dirt/spray/fingerprints is not a concern for you?

Man! : : :
I only answer to your question so that you see that I saw it.
The answer is obvious. If not for you, so be it!


Edit: This is my personal real world experience and opinion.
If you have a different point of view, that's okay. But I won't change mine here.

 

[Random Orbits]

If someone treats a piece of equipment badly and it gets damaged, that's their prerogative. You and I don't get to tell them what to do or not do. There's also no guarantee that the filter would have prevented the lens from being scratched. If the filter breaks, there's a good chance that the glass fragments from that will scratch the lens surface.
...


Why am I trying to persuade people that filters aren't really that necessary? Well, it is like trying to tell people that taking antibiotics isn't how you get over a common cold or the flu (antibiotics can only treat diseases, not viruses and both the flu and common cold are viruses.) In a manner of speaking, in many cases whilst the UV filter is considered to be a panacea, it is really nothing more than a placebo.

Funny that what you are saying in the last paragraph is in contradiction to what you said in the first.

You still don't get it. I never talked about scratched glass, I've talked about scratched coatings. It's you who is inferring something that I did not write. I have replaced several filters over the years. I have yet to replace a front element, but then none of them have been scratched/coatings degraded since I've had them either. The value of a lens higher with a pristine front end higher than with coating or glass scratches. Take a look at Ebay and LensAuthority. You can argue until you're blue in the face that coating failures don't impact IQ, but it does affect resale value, and that is undeniable.

 

[Maximilian]

...

One might therefore conclude that due to filters not being replaced very often it means that either the scratches in the lens coatings on filters don't matter or those lens coatings don't exist to be scratched or that filters don't get scratched nearly as often as people (who buy filters) want us to believe.

...
in many cases whilst the UV filter is considered to be a panacea, it is really nothing more than a placebo.

Hi again, dilbert!

Let's face it and let's try to come to a point. That'll save you and us some time and keeps some from cracking up.

Your opinion is, that protection filters are useless/not needed/money making/etc. because the IQ is getting worse and there is no real use for them, because in 99% of your estimated cases, there is no real damage and the filter doesn't have to be replaced or the impact with be that hard that protection filters are useless or making the situation even worse. Is that right?
If yes, okay! Copy that!
And I respect you and all others that think so.

My opinion (an the one of some others here) is that I don't see any real impact on the IQ and that I am willing to pay for a good protection filter for the remaining 1%, which I belive to be much greater, even if it is not.
Copy that, too?

If yes, thank you! Because neither of us is right or wrong. It's about weighing up probabilities against costs and IQ.
If no, so be it. But then I'm out of this discussion, because life is much more than protection filters.
Thank you for your understanding.


Edit: And back to OT: I think that video gives everybody a good understanding of the mechanical limits of protection filters, although the main purpose of protection filters is not to help lenses to survive base jumping.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Hypothetical scenario...
John Smith goes onto the beach every weekend during summer to shoot images of kites. Ideal conditions for flying kites is quite windy weather. After a couple of years John will sell his lens for an updated version

Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?

It is up to the individual photographer. Some would prefer a protective filter and others would prefer not using one.

 

[Random Orbits]

...
You still don't get it. I never talked about scratched glass, I've talked about scratched coatings. It's you who is inferring something that I did not write.

I'd like to know how someone determines that it is the lens coating that is scratched and not the lens element itself. The lens coatings are microscopically thin. Lets refer to this page:

http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/all-about-lens-coatings/

The wavelength of visible light is 400-700nm.

A 1/4 wavelength layer would be 100nm in depth.

There are 1,000,000nm per mm. 1 mm is .039 inches.

What people are saying on lensauthority is that they've scratched the lens coating layer only to a depth of less than .000039 of an inch and that this can be perceived.

I think it is highly more likely that people who say "scratched lens coating" should be saying "shallow scratched lens".

Otherwise, if you come up with the means to scratch a piece of glass to the depth of .000039 of an inch and can show this without using a microscope, let us know.

Seriously? It's not hard. Light reflects of a scratch or coating failure differently. If the reflection off the surface is not uniform, then you know. Both cases will affect resale value anyway.

[quote author=dilbert link]
You are right that the test isn't a scratch test but an impact test, although the impact does give some idea of the force required to scratch a lens. Refer back to the link on page 1 of this thread - glass is harder than steel so you'll have an easier time scratching steel with glass than glass with steel (strange but true.) However people here say they buy the filter to protect the lens from scratches so that must also be true, right? Oh, you're referring to the lens coating (which isn't of the same hardness as the filter) being scratched. That's likely not perceptible to a human but if that happens often then it is likely it also happens to filter coatings (which others in this thread equate to lens coatings.) One might therefore conclude that due to filters not being replaced very often it means that either the scratches in the lens coatings on filters don't matter or those lens coatings don't exist to be scratched or that filters don't get scratched nearly as often as people (who buy filters) want us to believe.
[/quote]
But of course you has stated earlier that glass is very hard and highly resistant to scratches, so it must be a coating failure.

 

[takesome1]

Filters are like condoms;
I prefer the look and feel I get without one.
But occasionally in nasty dirty situations it can offer some protection for your equipment.

 

[RGF]

Hypothetical scenario...
John Smith goes onto the beach every weekend during summer to shoot images of kites. Ideal conditions for flying kites is quite windy weather. After a couple of years John will sell his lens for an updated version

Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?

This is one of the few cases where I would use a protective filter. Mostly leave off

 

[FTb-n]

I'm guessing Steve didn't test the Hoya HD filters. There are impressive video demos of this filter that suggests it would with stand Steve's tests, or most of them.

I agree that hoods do more to deflect a lens from harm than filters, which is why all my lenses have hoods on them. But, I still like the filters to keep out dust and to protect the front element coating from smudges and dirt. Well, not exactly smudges and dirt, but from the effort to clean off the smudges and dirt...not that I often smudge up my lenses...but if I did...plus, the Hoya HD filters are extremely easy to clean. Seriously, fingerprints are very easy to wipe off of these filters.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have at least two dozen filters, I virtually never use them. I should sell them before everyone catches on.