Is it ok to keep a UV filter on, all the time?

[rkt]

I used to do that same, in fact pick a filter with a new lens till I noticed that some of my pictures got some artifacts due to internal reflection between the filter and the front element ... it also affects the IQ to a certain extent (depends on the quality of filter as well).

Now I just ensure I keep the lens hood on for protection, and leave the filters at home ... unless I know it will be used in very dusty/dirty conditions ...

 

[Crollo]

People saying shattered filters don't protect the lens: Nobody's saying a UV filter will protect your lens from a freaking smash to the front element. However, small dirt particles, water, and small scratches are​ the form of 'protection' that people look into UV filters for. Using a lens hood to protect the front element from these cases is irrational.

 

[sovietdoc]

I used to use a UV filter at all times on my old camera. Then I took it off (after years of use) and compared the difference.

I will now have to reshoot all places I've shot with the filter on. And I am never putting a filter on my glass again.

However, small dirt particles, water, and small scratches are​ the form of 'protection' that people look into UV filters for

Or you could just get a better lens. Most L glass is pretty nicely sealed from water and dust. And you should never get scratches on your lens. If you do, then you didn't handle it well.

Why spend big bucks on expensive glass for all that contrast and sharpness, and then waste it by putting a cheap UV filter on the front?

Of weather sealed glass cost too much for your pocket, you can just always be careful. I've used my old 17-85 for years and I've shot with it in the heavy rain multiple times. When I sold it, it had 0 scratches and was in perfect condition. It all depends on the care that you take of our equipment.

 

[brush]

I wish I can insure my gear against any and all damage no matter how small for only $35. My homeowners insurance policy for the items stored at home are several times that.

Check with the agent who underwrites your home owner policy about something called an "inland marine" policy. After my whole rant about things being named what they do...this blows my theory out of the water unfortunately. It has nothing to do with boats. They write inland marine policies for jewelry, camera gear, musical instruments, bikes, etc. etc. etc. Based on the risk assessment of the items you're insuring, the price changes. Funny thing is for some reason a camera is very low risk, apparently they haven't seen my pictures of waterfalls canyons or mountain bikes. insuring my mountain bike would've cost 10 times the camera, and they're the same value! It's a separate policy from your homeowners, which is why it protects you against so much more theft loss & damage, and for a greater amount than the itemized coverage within your home owners, AND it has no deductible, AND if you have to make a claim on it, your homeowner rates won't go up.

...AND If you take long exposure pictures at night with insurance still on your camera, it won't create lens flare.

 

[Alex_B]

People saying shattered filters don't protect the lens: Nobody's saying a UV filter will protect your lens from a freaking smash to the front element. However, small dirt particles, water, and small scratches are​ the form of 'protection' that people look into UV filters for. Using a lens hood to protect the front element from these cases is irrational.

small dirt particles? water? they do nothing to your front element .... and small scratches you get from something scratching you lens. here a lens hood can help! at least outdoor.

 

[photographyxfactor]

Filters can sometimes cause flaring - ghosting - those effects are cut down or don't exist with hood.A filter is easier to replace than clean a lens .[ why I carry at least 2 ]
Most filters are cheaper to replace than lenses .

 

[usayit]

I wish I can insure my gear against any and all damage no matter how small for only $35. My homeowners insurance policy for the items stored at home are several times that.

Check with the agent who underwrites your home owner policy about something called an "inland marine" policy.

IIRC it was named after the Act from which it came from.

I have checked into it... it covers extended accidental damage but not damage due to use. Its the difference between a laptop that has been dropped versus scratches from use. It also came out quite expensive because of the amount I would need to be insured. Ever since ditching the caps, not worrying so much, and using filters, I have yet to have a situation which an insurance policy as such would be useful. Theft (out and during storage at home) on the other hand is covered (one reason why I generally don't carry a bag made specifically for cameras).

I have never had flare problems nor image quality issues... I use filters properly. I admit, it is ~not~ a leave on and forget item. So to answer the OP's question, No its not something you leave on ALL THE TIME. But assuming you have good quality filters, its ok to leave it on most of the time. I also agree... there's no reason to put a low quality glass in front of a high quality optic; especially uncoated glass. That's like shooting through a window. If you choose to use filters, use quality that matches the optic.

 

[Gaerek]

People saying shattered filters don't protect the lens: Nobody's saying a UV filter will protect your lens from a freaking smash to the front element. However, small dirt particles, water, and small scratches are​ the form of 'protection' that people look into UV filters for. Using a lens hood to protect the front element from these cases is irrational.

Here's an experiment.

1. Set your camera on a tripod.
2. Take a picture of something.
3. Tape a thread or piece low lb test fishing line so it touches near the center of your front lens element.
4. Take a picture of the same something.
5. Compare the two shots.

Chances are, you will not see a difference between the two shots. Stopped down as far as you can go (f/22) you might see something. Dust, fingerprints, even small scratches will not noticeably affect the image quality of most shots. A filter, even the good, expensive ones, WILL, in many cases make a noticeable impact on your shot. UV filters do nothing good for the final image of a digital camera. When digital cameras started being more and more popular, camera shops had an excessive number of UV filters (which did have a use in the film days) that they needed to sell. So rather than selling them as UV filters, they would try to upsell them as a "lens protector." Sicne camera shops realized there's a sucker born every minute, and they didn't have a bridge to sell, they realized they could make an additional few bucks with every camera sale if they either included one in a package deal, or just sold it as a nesesary item.

I live in an area of the country known for its rain. Using a lens hood eliminates most of the rain drops from hitting the front element, but they still get there. I have yet to see an image where a few rain drops have affected the final image. Certainly, the times when the front element was covered in rain, it made an impact...but guess what, the "lens protector" will have the same problem, and since it's further out than the front element, it will be more prone to attracting those errant drops of rain. So in those cases, a "lens protector" is still worse than using nothing but a lens hood.

Here's a new idea. Realize that you are carrying a very expensive, piece of precision equipment and treat it like what it is.

 

[analog.universe]

For the in focus part of the image, you will not notice small blemishes, or even medium sized ones on a front element. The bokeh is another story however... Shoot wide open with a blurred background, and each "bokeh ball" around a highlight will be a precise map of every speck of dust and scratch on your lens...

 

[Crollo]

You can smash your entire front element to hell and it still will only barely show up in the images.

So why bother protecting your lens at all, why care about keeping it clean?

Certainly, the times when the front element was covered in rain, it made an impact...

Yeah, and guess what? You just unscrew the filter and suddenly you don't have to spend 2 minutes wiping down your front element, dealing with the now grease-like coating!

 

[jwbryson1]

Here's the photo that convinced me to take the UV filter off my lens permanently.


IMG_7404 by Bill Rush, on Flickr

Yep. That's a great reason.

Sorry---what is the reason? What am I missing?

 

[Gaerek]

You can smash your entire front element to hell and it still will only barely show up in the images.





So why bother protecting your lens at all, why care about keeping it clean?

Certainly, the times when the front element was covered in rain, it made an impact...

Yeah, and guess what? You just unscrew the filter and suddenly you don't have to spend 2 minutes wiping down your front element, dealing with the now grease-like coating!

First of all, those pictures prove my point. Front element damage, especially minor front element damage (you know, the kind you mentioned the filter being useful against) isn't going to make an impact on IQ. So, thanks for posting that and shooting your argument down. I was actually going to post it, but didn't feel like looking for it. You did the work for me.

Second of all, with regards to the rain, the OP wanted to know if it's something that can be used all the time. There are certainly circumstances where a "protection filter" can come in handy. I listened to a podcast a couple years ago, can't remember which one, where one of the photographers was going to be in the Sahara for a couple weeks. He knew it would likely be windy and he didn't want his front elements sand blasted, especially on his L glass. So he bought 2 or 3 "protection filters" for each of his lenses for use while he was there. He said he spent somewhere around $1200 on them. But since he had ended up having to throw away many sand blasted filters, he figures he saved around $8000 on lens replacements or an increase in his insurance premium. Now before you say this anecdote proves your point, it doesn't. Rain and blowing sand are two possible uses for protection filters. Just like I wouldn't use a polarizer in many circumstances, I won't use a protection filter in many circumstances. It still shows that you shouldn't use your filter in every circumstance.

And lets add to the rain situation. What happens when your filter loads up with rain? Or right, you're back to bare front element now. You had to spend time removing the filter, which if you're prepared, is about the same amount of time or longer, actually (trust me, I've done it both ways...I shoot in the rain A LOT) it takes to quickly wipe the front element off and get back to shooting. You don't need to spend 2 minutes ensuring there's no more water or streaks on your front element. You just need to dry the big drops off. Takes literally 5 seconds if you have a dry cloth in your pocket. Not only that, a UV filter loads up with rain about three times as fast as your front element will, since it is usually sticking out significantly further.

Are there times where a "protection filter" can be useful? Sure, there is. Just like there are times when a polarizer or ND filter can be useful. But in the long run, the "protection filter" will hurt your shots more than help. And the OP didn't want to know about specific uses of a "protection filter," he wanted to know if it's bad to have it on all the time.

Let me put it another way. I have yet to see an incident, either personally experienced, or online, where a "protection filter" actually prevented damage that would affect the IQ of the lens. However, I have seen dozens, if not hundreds of examples where a UV filter, by itself affected the IQ of the lens. Pretty obvious which the better all around choice is. Let me quote myself here, to drive home the point:

Realize that you are carrying a very expensive, piece of precision equipment and treat it like what it is.

Follow this, and you'll minimize damage to your gear. Period.

 

[Dao]

UV filter is like Pink color. Some people like it, some don't. It does not mean they are wrong, it is just a different perference.

If that make you feel comfortable and convience, use it. It not, don't use it.

 

[o hey tyler]

Here's the photo that convinced me to take the UV filter off my lens permanently.


IMG_7404 by Bill Rush, on Flickr

Yep. That's a great reason.

Sorry---what is the reason? What am I missing?

You're missing the "Tilt A Whirl" sign with all the ghosting around it.

 

[Gaerek]

Yep. That's a great reason.

Sorry---what is the reason? What am I missing?

You're missing the "Tilt A Whirl" sign with all the ghosting around it.

But Tyler, that's artistic! :roll: