Do you use UV filters?

yes to using uv filters. not in every situation though.
 
I haven't used protective filters in 15 years. I've used dozens of cameras and hundreds of lenses in that time (way too many to buy extra filters for), and I've yet to damage the front element of any of them. I use lens hoods religiously though, and that's probably helped in the few cases where I bashed the front of the lens.

I saw enough examples of image degradation to convince me when I shot film. The examples I've seen with digital are even worse. There's a good article about it with examples in the archives over at Shootsmarter.com.


Same here with this caveat. I do own a decent quality UV filter for all of my lenses. They get used on only two occasions. High altitude when I need to cut haze and very bad conditions where blowing sand, flying dirt or mud could be an issue. Fortunately most of the colleges these days do not use natural grass fields so dirt and mud is not much of a problem anymore.
 
I don't Understand using UV filters, I used to for protection reasons until I found out how lenses work. Lens companies spend copious amount of money in R+D trying to figure out the best lens construction they can, Carving Beautiful convex and concave lens elements from the best Glass available they have Complex formulas that determine how close or far each element must be placed, (to measurements smaller then millimeters i might add) from each other so the reflection and refraction of the light hitting the lens behaves correctly.

All this to give you the sharpest fastest, lightest best performing lens that will give you the best colour reproduction possible.

What's the first thing we do when we buy our brand new expensive lens? chuck a foriegn Unaligned cheap (and compared to the price of the glass in a decent lens, ALL Filters are cheap) piece of glass on the front, sending all the work done previously to the dogs!

Now dont get me wrong i understand the Protection factor and spending a hundred bucks or so to protect a few grand, but as soon as you throw that filter on you are not using the full potential of you lens.

Effects filters fine, no worries, but a UV filter that is suposed to cut down the uv light? Glass does that naturally, and you have a puck load of glass in front of that image plane doing more then enough for you already.
 
I only slap one on when the environment is harsh and at that I usually use a CP or a ND. I always use hoods though and I religiously use lens caps.
 
I'd like to add one more point that was said in previous threads regarding filters...

Do you own test... and decide on your own. If you see an impact to image quality then you have one of two choices:

1) buy better quality filters (no different from buying better quality lenses)
2) don't use a filter.

Personal choice... that is all that matters. How expensive of a lens are you risking... $100... $1000... $10,000? How often do you notice a difference.. only against bright points of light (sun)... sometimes.. all the time??? How about the environment in which you shoot??
 
Last edited:
I'm in the camp that doesn't use a filter unless trying to modify the light (e.g. polarizer, etc.) In 35 years of photography, I've never damaged a lens that a filter could have prevented.

I liken protective filters on lenses to plastic covers on couches or bras on cars.
 
When i get my AF-D 80-200 im sure gonna have one on that but i dont protect my nifty fifty or my kit lens
 
I do a lot of concert photography and the filter stays on. Besides the beer and sweat flying around, my lens get knocked all over the place when I'm trying to get through the crowd or if some crowd surfer or bottle rains down on me I want all the protection I can get. And frankly, my pictures are plenty sharp enough.
 
I've always used cheap UV filters as physical protection. I'd far rather scratch a cheap piece of glass than the front element of one of my lenses.

I've never used anything but cheap filters that cost me less than $10. I just can't make myself spend big bucks on a round piece of glass with a ring around it.

That said, I was curious, so I did a quick little test with a cheap UV filter I bought with a set on Amazon. I set my D40 on a tripod with the 55-200 VR and SB-600 and shot these:



(click for 100% crop)

There is a perceivable difference at 100% crop. At any normal viewing distance, you'll only see the difference if you're studying closely for it. If I sharpen the filtered photo a bit in PP, I can get it equally as sharp when viewed at a normal distance, but there is some pixelation upon close inspection.

I'd be interested in seeing a similar test done with an expensive UV/clear filter. If the results are satisfactory, it could swing me the other way to buy a set of more expensive filters.

Anyone?
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested in seeing a similar test done with an expensive UV/clear filter. If the results are satisfactory, it could swing me the other way to buy a set of more expensive filters.

The 55-200 is a nice lens, but I'd be more interested in seeing the effects of the cheap UV on a... ahem, nicer (read, life savings $$$ oh my god i'm going to go bury my dead wallet in the backyard)...lens
 
Yes, I understand what you mean. I'll try it again tomorrow on my 50/1.8 stopped down to ideal conditions. No, I know that's not the my-wife-is-going-to-kill-me-for-buying-this lens, but it should be better than the 55-200 in terms of image quality outright.
 
Yes, I understand what you mean. I'll try it again tomorrow on my 50/1.8 stopped down to ideal conditions. No, I know that's not the my-wife-is-going-to-kill-me-for-buying-this lens, but it should be better than the 55-200 in terms of image quality outright.

k, thanks for guinea-pigging it
 
Wow, you really can see a difference. What is interesting is that the color is even different.
I think it's more the amount of light. The filter robs maybe a 1/10th or 1/5th a stop of light, so the filtered photo is very slightly darker.

As promised, here's my second test:



I see much less of a difference here, if any.

This test was done using better conditions: I used my Series E 50/1.8 stopped down to f/5.6.
 
When I used to use UV filters I would notice diffrent colorations to them. Even in the same brands at times. Which is why I have never used them really. Clears that are multicoated are the way to go or, taking them off when shooting but, that is kind of a pain and defeats the filters purpose.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top