UV Filter and DSLR

[frosty]

I was wondering if a UV filter is really necessary on a digital camera lense. As it's easy to adjust the blueish colour you get without using one - is this one filter I can safely ignore?

 

[spike000]

Not necessary really - but many people use them to protect the front element of the lense. The theory being that replacing a filter is cheaper than replacing an element or a complete lens.
Personally I don't see the point in spending in excess of $1000 on a decent bit of glass only to stick another bit in front - but that's my choice.


Spike

 

[Rogue Monk]

Unless you're shooting in less than decent conditions (rain, wind, sand, and dust), a "protective" filter is a little pointless. If your lens hits the ground, there's a good chance something inside or the barrel will break before the front element.

That being said, a uv filter is usually to protect film from uv radiation and has no tint. The sky/haze filter is tinted to reduce blues (don't quote me on this though. I don't have that info right in front of me). Hertz might be able to shed more light on practical/historical use.

You can correct using white balance and you should shoot in RAW to give yourself the best options for this later on. When it gets windy, I use a uv filter to make clean up a little easier. And during night shots, I take it off to ensure I don't get flare when shooting the moon.

If you think it makes a difference, use it (I do). Some love it. Some hate it. It comes down to preference, really.

 

[frosty]

Thanks for that. I was thinking along the same lines as Spike - ie why add more bits of glass between the camera and the subject than necessary.
Just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything there.