UV Filter or Not?

Montana · Mar 20, 2009

I only use a protection filter when in dusty situations. I always use the hood. I shoot 98% outside birding and wildlife, some landscapes. So flare is an issue at times and I just prefer not to have to think about whether or not to remove it.

woodywalters · Mar 23, 2009

Unless your using an "HD3 UV" filter, dont bother with a filter. Camera manuafactors have spent millions of dollars pollishing and coating lenses to correct for abverations. When you place a $9.00 filter in front of the lens, you have just made your $500-1000.00 lens into a $9.00 lens. In general, uv filters is just another way for a camera store to get another $25.00 from you. Save your money, and keep the quality of your lens. Dont use a UV filter.

woody
Woody Walters Photography Fine art, Christian Art, Illustrations
digitalphotocandy.com : Home

Captain IK · Mar 23, 2009

I wouldn't take a lens out of the camera bag without a filter on it.
No one will ever convince me that adding a filter to a lens degrades the IQ enough to become a problem.
And I've never heard anyone say...that would have been a great shot if you hadn't put that filter on the lens

Mike_E · Mar 23, 2009

Once again http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/2007/05/31/filters/

A $9 lens is a broken lens.

prodigy2k7 · Mar 23, 2009

Mike_E said:
Once again http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/2007/05/31/filters/

A $9 lens is a broken lens.

You dont know for 100% that is would have cracked the front element. He got lucky. If its going to crack the front element, its going to crack the front element whether there is a single filter infront of it or not... Filters are generally thinner than the front element of a lens...

Mike_E · Mar 23, 2009

Few cracks are caused by hammer blows.

In the end it's your money, but everyone should have the opportunity to know know the full score before risking a sizable investment -maybe the one time in their lives they'll make that investment- needlessly. There are a lot of newbies that pass through here and broad statements like these without explanation are not helpful.

Yes there are times when a filter wouldn't help, a very few but a few. A really bad filter will degrade the image to the point it will show on a print. There are not that many of those either. Yes if you want to pixel peep it's easier to see but in the real world the pluses far out weigh the minuses.

Seefutlung · Mar 23, 2009

prodigy2k7 said:
You dont know for 100% that is would have cracked the front element. He got lucky. If its going to crack the front element, its going to crack the front element whether there is a single filter infront of it or not... Filters are generally thinner than the front element of a lens...

Nothing is known for sure ... I've been in situations where I've lost the UV filter and was able to keep shooting because the front element was intact.

The broken glass was touching the front element ... but the UV absorbed most of the shock leaving the front element/lens usable.

UV's are cheap insurance because you never know.

Gary

Winterson · Mar 24, 2009

If you are using a lens hood the lens' front element is protected from knocks and your image is enhanced by the shielding from stray light. With a filter there is going to be increased flare, possible CA, and vignetting. If you use a thin UV filter to avoid vignetting then you will need to unscrew it to add another filter, or use the lens cap.

I use a filter when shooting where there is likely to be windblown dirt or sand but not for general photography. I have shot hundreds of weddings and done travel photography all over the world both above and under water and have never had a front element damaged on a lens. I have dented and cracked lens hoods from time to time, though some like the one for the Nikon 12-24mm f4 is just a poor design.