Clear UV Lens Filters (lens protection): A real waste of money?

[PaulWog]

I picked up a $60 UV lens protector (67mm Hoya UV coated) when I originally picked up my 16-85mm VR Nikon lens ($700). If I shopped around online rather than locally, I am sure I could've saved $100 on the lens at the time of purchase, and probably $20 on the lens protector: But let's put that aside (since I know on these forums little details are often addressed that sidetrack the heck out of a thread! hahaha).

Well, my $60 lens filter which was supposed to be top-quality ended up getting a nasty scratch on it. It was UV coated, so even the slightest brushing against anything (even the lens cap) resulted in a smudge across the filter. Basically, if I took my camera out with the lens filter on the lens, it was inevitable for smudging to occur at some point. This basically means that on vacations, going out shooting for a day, etc, almost always resulted in me taking the lens filter off at some point. Lots of dust on the Hoya lens filter? It would smudge if I used a lens brush to get it off. The UV coating was a nightmare. I would bring a lens pen with me: No good. UV coating is a nightmare and is almost impossible to fix once it's brushed up against. And dust sticks to it a little more easily too.

So anyway, the filter got scratched just within 6 months of purchase. But that definitely wasn't worth it! It got scratched *BECAUSE* I had to take it off while I was out, and in the bag somehow it scratched up against something (I don't even know!). The scratch is pretty bad, and so I can't use the lens filter anymore at all...

Now... I received an 85mm 1.8G as a present and I received a slightly cheaper non-UV coated lens filter alongside it. This lens protector/filter appears not to degrade any picture quality after testing, and yet I have no smudging issues at all.

End of the day: Is it really worth going for the "top top end" clear filters for protection? Is UV coating junk? I'm completely confused about clear lens filters to be honest...

 

[bratkinson]

I don't know which 'war' around here is the biggest...Canon vs Nikon....or protective filter vs no protective filter. The sides are about equal.

I in the 'use a lens hood' camp. They're definitely cheaper than a good quality UV filter, take bumps and dings without a problem, and might even protect the lens in a fall by absorbing some of the shock before it pops off and breaks.


And to feed the flames...just a bit...
LensRentals.com - Good Times with Bad Filters
LensRentals.com - Bad Times with Bad Filters

 

[amolitor]

This has been the subject of many a religious war here on TPF.

On the one hand it is clear that there are cases where a protective filter will protect the lens from damage, acting as a "sacrificial" barrier. On the other hand it is equally clear that these circumstances are quite rare. Accidents disproportionately fall in to either "no damage" or "total destruction" categories, in real life.

Add to this these two facts:

- minor damage to the front element of the lens doesn't do much to degrade picture quality, often there is no visible effect at all
- a filter can cause focusing problems, flare problems, and a host of other hard to diagnose minor problems, which don't turn up in test shots.

Put all this together, and you find that a lot of people will advocate AGAINST the filters. If you still want one, definitely spring for a good quality multi-coated one, which will tend to reduce the various hard to diagnose problems alluded to above.

 

[GDHLEWIS]

In the end like amolitor said if your going to buy a filter fork out the extra cash and get a quality one.

 

[mmaria]

I took my off...

 

[robbins.photo]

In the end like amolitor said if your going to buy a filter fork out the extra cash and get a quality one.

What's this? No holy war? Ahh geez. Ok FINE. It takes me hours to get all this armor on, find my sword - get the old nag out of the barn only to find out the crusades have been cancelled. Man.. what a bunch of slackers.. lol

 

[Bulb]

It's not worth using a lens filter for protection.

They're much more delicate than the front element of a lens. It's actually more likely that a bump will shatter the filter and force broken glass against the front of your lens.

Use a lens hood instead. If you use the hood meant for your lens then you will have no reduction in image quality. Because they are made of plastic rather than glass they also absorb some of the shock from an impact.

Save the filters for when you actually need one of the effects they provide.

 

[tirediron]

My 'daily driver' bag has five lenses, worth about $10,000 - exactly zero of them have "protective" filters on them. Whether you want to or not is up to you, but here's my thinking. Canon, Nikon, or whomever, has put a LOT of time and money into the design and production of that lens. Even on cheap kit lenses, they use good quality glass and coatings. Every thing that you put in the optical path between the front lens element and the sensor will degrade image quality, maybe not much, maybe not noticably, but there is degradation there. If you MUST use a "protective" filter, then spend the money and get one where the manufacturer has put as much into the R&D of the filter as has gone into your lens. Looks for names such as Lee, Singh-Ray, B+W and Heliopan.

 

[KmH]

Buckster noticed the high quality protection filters he had been using on all his lenses were causing Newton's Rings on all his photos. Newton's rings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 'protection' filter adds an air gap to the lens, and an air gap promote lens flare. High quality protection filters have coatings to help minimize flare but....

Lens filter glass is much thinner than a front lens element. so it is easily broken, and as mentioned, sharp shards of broken filter glass can damage the very thing they were intended to protect.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...attered-uv-filter-resulting-lens-scratch.html
LensRentals.com - Front Element Scratches

There are shooting situations that putting a clear or UV filter on the lens for protection make sense, but as noted above those situations are not very common.

 

[minicoop1985]

I dropped my wife's Sony a230 with the 18-55 on it. There was a clear filter there for protection-a decent one too. It shattered. Now consider about 10,000 sharp little shards of glass coming at or being forced onto your lens. While, yes, it's unlikely that those scratches will do much, I'm sure we would all rather avoid them, wouldn't we? The only time I use filters on my completely replaceable and common lenses is when I need a polarizer. That's about it.

 

[astroNikon]

When I'm not taking a picture I use one of those high tech fangled things called a lens cap.

Just 'saying 'ya know

otherwise I'm in the camp of no filter (unless you need one, CPL, ND4 etc for something) and a hood.

 

[ann]

In over 65 years I have never damaged a lens, use a lens hood and am in the no uv filter or clear glass camp. Only use a filter if there is a real need, CLP , ND etc.

Even with film I had filters for various black and white situations but only for separating grayscale values and then not my favorite thing

 

[hirejn]

I think I stand with most pros when I say UV filters are not worth anything, not even $20. The amateur market may be divided, but if you look at most pros you'll see bare glass. The simple reason is we don't want anything cheap in front of our lenses, and we take enough care with lens caps and lens hoods, and handling, to eliminate damage. If you read "The Negative," Ansel Adams recommends not using UV filters unless you're in a severe environment.

When I started decades ago I believed in the sales pitches about protection and UV filtering, but I later realized I never actually received those benefits. They were just perceived. Once I took the crap off, I was able to see that image quality was actually better without it and I could protect the glass myself for free. Also, I realized that it's almost impossible for a bit of dirt or even a scratch to affect image quality. Once you get over that fear, you'll be in the Matrix and will realize you owe the salespeople nothing. Nobody can stop you from buying a glorified lens cap for $80, but I can suggest it's a waste of money.

 

[robbins.photo]

And so the no filter camp settled in for the night, with no sign of their filter using quarry. Would the dreaded filter users counter attack in the middle of the night? Only time would tell.

 

[Overread]

Filters:

When it comes to offering protection against damage a clear glass filter or UV filter is an ideal tool to protect against materials such as:

Sand
salt water spray
heavy dust
water
mud (when comprised of light grains and no stones/gravel/grit)

The filter is thin glass and thus can offer protection only against light or water based damage. If you were shooting on the beach, in strong wind, in desserts or in other similar environments you might well use a filter to protect the lens so that you can wipe the front glass clean quickly without worries of scratches; since the cost of replacement is less than for repair on most high end lenses and you can still use the lens without the filter (you can't use a lens when its in the repair shop).


Filters are no use at all and indeed offer increased damage potential when faced against things such as

stones
being dropped whilst on the lens
any large projectile

The thin glass will shatter easily and the shattered glass can blow back into the lens front element; scratching it up far worse. Being dropped can also run the risk that the filter thread will lock onto the lens thread and be a difficulty in being removed whilst at the same time often damaging the screw thread on the lens. It also offers no padding or breaking distance to really "take a fall" for the lens.



As such filters can offer a modest form of protection, but really only in specific situations and for most people (ie those not living on the beach/in a desert) the protection offered isn't worth the investment. Note that one should always use quality filters; cheap ones will degrade your overall optical performance; introduce more aberrations; can affect the AF and accuracy of the cameras focusing.

So its not a straight yes/no answer, its more of an "it depends" answer.



Note modern cameras have no need for additional UV light blocking, unless you are shooting at a very high altitude where the ambient UV levels are higher than at lower altitudes (something like 5000 feet above sea level or there abouts is where you can start thinking about adding a UV filter). As such a good clear glass filter can be just as good at normal shooting altitudes.