Do you use a UV filter?

[Moglex]

There have been some pretty dogmatic statements on the "You should Never use Any filters, except" thread.

I wondered what the consensus was amongst members here.

 

[Montana]

You don't have the option i would choose in your poll.

Yes, but only when in extremely dusty/wet environments.

 

[dxqcanada]

UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.

The sensor/sensor-filter in most DSLR's are not sensitive to wavelengths below 400nm ... so a UV filter's only purpose on Digital Camera's is for protection only.

 

[Moglex]

You don't have the option i would choose in your poll.

Yes, but only when in extremely dusty/wet environments.

Perhaps a kindly mod would add an option: "Yes, but only in particularly hazardous conditions".

 

[Moglex]

UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.

The sensor/sensor-filter in most DSLR's are not sensitive to wavelengths below 400nm ... so a UV filter's only purpose on Digital Camera's is for protection only.

This poll is not limited to digital camera users.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

I'm afraid I never use a UV filter . Do I get a smack now?

Nah, I really just don't think it's worth it. I suppose that if I was shooting in rain/sand/snow a lot, then yes, I would invest in a high-quality one, or possibly just a protection filter. I use my CPL for counteracting haze.

 

[christm]

Yes - All time time, on any lens I use. Sometimes I use a polarizing filter to bring out colour etc.. where appropriate.

 

[Josh66]

...Don't even own one.

 

[rubbertree]

UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.

The sensor/sensor-filter in most DSLR's are not sensitive to wavelengths below 400nm ... so a UV filter's only purpose on Digital Camera's is for protection only.

Yet we get information to the contrary to this all the time. Wish I knew what to believe.

 

[Josh66]

UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.

The sensor/sensor-filter in most DSLR's are not sensitive to wavelengths below 400nm ... so a UV filter's only purpose on Digital Camera's is for protection only.

Yet we get information to the contrary to this all the time. Wish I knew what to believe.

Don't the coatings on modern lenses eliminate the need for UV filters too?
...So even with film, you wouldn't really need one.

 

[Moglex]

Don't the coatings on modern lenses eliminate the need for UV filters too?

Do you have a source for that?

I hadn't heard.

Not that that means anything.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Perhaps a kindly mod would add an option: "Yes, but only in particularly hazardous conditions".

Is that good for you? :mrgreen:

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Don't the coatings on modern lenses eliminate the need for UV filters too?

Why, do they drop test them these days?

 

[Moglex]

Perhaps a kindly mod would add an option: "Yes, but only in particularly hazardous conditions".

Is that good for you? :mrgreen:

Yes, spot on, thank you.

 

[table1349]

Well you can scratch the vote for:Yes, but only to counteract UV haze

Add a vote for: Yes, but only in particularly hazardous conditions

The choice wasn't offered when I voted so I chose the closest thing.