Some UV Filter truth.

LightSpeed · Dec 19, 2010

Folks , I am not here to be image God. But in my short time I have seen some of the debate. First on the list. UV/protection filters degrading image quality.

Here is the take on this. The human eye can't detect it, IF there is any when using an upper echelon filter like Heliopan. This aint a plug for Heliopan because I use Marumi too. Both are really good filters. One just costs more than the other. Now here are some facts coming from a gunsmith.
I've written this before but I'll write it again. I have seen, with my own eyes, what continual cleaning of a front and rear lens element can do to fine rifle scopes. I'm not talking cheap junk here. I'm talking about Nikon, Pentax, Weaver ( one of the oldest scope names) , Ziess, and Leupold. All of the afore mentioned scopes use high end glass and their price tags reveal this. Take your camera out on a shoot for 3 hours without a UV/protection filter, then come back and inspect your front element. It WILL have dust and debris on it. I guarantee you that. Now, moving right along. Every time you brush that lens element, no matter how clean you think it is, you're going to be pushing/grinding something into that glass and its coating no matter how lightly you do it or how careful you are. The more you do it, the more damage. On the other hand, IF you decide to use a high quality UV filter, you minimize this by a ton. You can literally go years without touching the front lens element and occasionally blowing it with a rocket blower IF you need to.

I'll now ask a question with an obvious answer. Which do you believe will degrade image quality the most over the long haul? The UV filter, or the constant cleaning of the front element?

I've seen some of the rhetoric about how a lens hood provides much more protection for the front element than a UV ever could. Excuse me while I call Bull****-vic because a lens hood does not keep dust and debris off of a front lens element. The people saying this are parroting something someone else said before them. It's a myth. It's not true. It never will be true.

Just a friendly tip from LightSpeed. Use a filter. Opinions and retort welcomed.

Next up on the list : Pixel count doesn't matter. This is also a myth.

Chamelion 6 · Dec 19, 2010

I have UV filters on every lens I own for this very reason. I'm not so worried about impact damage as I am normal wear and tear. I shoot in a lot of crap and sand, dust, and the elements most definately degrade the fine coatings on the front elements. I clean my filters constantly and have worn several out over the years. Wlile the coatings on the filters may not be to the same standards as high end lens coatings, constant cleaning is still going to degrade the lens over time.

point-&-shoot · Dec 19, 2010

i have seen you post on TPf many times and i always respected what you had to say.
you just seemed like a good guy. i wasn't really sure how talk of photography could make me feel that but now i know what it is. your a fellow gun lover!! and a smith at that!!

good post and nice to meet you sir.
Kyle

LightSpeed said:
Now here are some facts coming from a gunsmith.

usayit · Dec 19, 2010

yup... agree 100% and I know I am among the minority. I use filters as well... on all lenses. Just like any form of insurance, it is a personal decision but I do because

. I like to clean my lenses front elements using anything in all conditions without the worry of wearing or scratching up the front element.
. I do not use any caps. I loose them and they just get in the way. I shoot mostly with primes and they slow me down.
. I have personally dropped a lens and although it required a repair afterward, the optics were spared and the filter itself took the brunt of the impact.
. I have not noticed any problems and I do use high quality filters.
. I collect lenses and have seen more than my share of glass with cleaning marks.
. Most of my lenses are pretty good about resisting flare and size does matter with me. Hoods simply add to the size and with little benefit.
. My lenses were extremely difficult to afford.... replacement is now next to impossible and I want to know I didnt screw it up because of a filter.

KmH · Dec 19, 2010

LightSpeed said:
The people saying this are parroting something someone else said before them.

Which is exactly what you have done.

What you posted is certainly not new thoughts about the issue.

Bitter Jeweler · Dec 19, 2010

Oooh!

Another thread that will polarize the forum.

:popcorn:

Josh66 · Dec 19, 2010

Under certain circumstances, UV (or any other) filters certainly will degrade image quality. Go take a picture of a kid blowing out candles on a birthday cake with one, for example.

I've seen filters cause ghosting on point light sources like a candle.

I don't have a problem with UV filters, but I do think that leaving one on the lens all the time is not really necessary. I think there are times when it helps, and there are times when it hurts.

You just have to figure out which is which.

ann · Dec 19, 2010

Not if I stand at a proper angle to the sun

Josh66 · Dec 19, 2010

ann said:
Not if I stand at a proper angle to the sun

What if that wasn't possible? Would you take the filter off, or just choose not to take the picture?

Derrel · Dec 19, 2010

UV filters are evil, and are out to take over the world!

UV filters will protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Pick a side. Devote your life to the appropriate point of view.

table1349 · Dec 19, 2010

Gee I always thought that my Swarovski Z6i was a good scope on my .308 cal, bull barrel Steyr-Mannlicher Professional Model M. It didn't even make the list. :lol:

ann · Dec 19, 2010

josh that comment was to Bitter and the popcorn

Frankly , I never use a uv filter, never have and probably never will not even for protection. After 60 years never a scatch on a lens.

A polarizer some times .

Besides , who's truth is this, I am with Derrel on this (oh, my gosh, what is the world coming too):gah::taped sh:

:coffee:Beer to go with the popcorn

Derrel · Dec 19, 2010

ann said:
josh that comment was to Bitter and the popcorn

Frankly , I never use a uv filter, never have and probably never will not even for protection. After 60 years never a scatch on a lens.

A polarizer some times .

Besides , who's truth is this, I am with Derrel on this (oh, my gosh, what is the world coming too):gah::taped sh:

:coffee:Beer to go with the popcorn

ann, WHAT has gotten into you? TWO uses of crazy emoticons in one, single post??? Have you been hanging out with erose86 or something? :sexywink:

Josh66 · Dec 19, 2010

ann said:
josh that comment was to Bitter and the popcorn

Oh. Sorry. :lol:

Anyway, I never use one either (don't even own one, actually). But I have seen how they can negatively affect photos from others. I did have one at one time, but I gave it away...

I do believe that in some cases they do help and should be used - I just never seem to shoot in those situations, which is why I haven't felt the need to buy one yet (er, replace the one I gave away). Next time I go to the beach I might pick one up for the sand/salt.

(Wow, it really has been a long time since I've been to a beach...)