UV Filters?

[burdock87]

Do UV filters really help with sunny-day images that much? I mean, is it really worthwhile to get one? A lot of people say it's a cheap insurance policy to protect your lens from scratches, etc, and that in itself isn't a bad idea; but what about the picture quality? Does it help?

I have a Nikon Coolpix L110, and the only filters I can find are on Gojo or something like that; it's a 67mm aluminum tube adapter thing that comes with a UV filter. It's only $19; but is it worth while?

 

[rambler]

They are an effective, inexpensive way to protect an expensive lens. Some just use the hood as protection. I cannot see that they have much of an effect on the image.

 

[burdock87]

The camera I have doesn't have the awesome lenses that the more expensive cameras have. It's a simple one-piece camera. Some people say that it really filters out the "extra" UV rays to make the pic seem less...overexposed. Any thoughts?

 

[480sparky]

I have yet to have anyone tell me, "You know, this would have been a smashing image, but you had a UV filter on the lens, so it ended up being crap." I'm in the "Sacrificial UV filter (or skylight, if that's what trips your trigger) camp".

 

[valshon]

My (limited) understanding is that uv filters were more necessary with film cameras. However digital sensors are not as sensitive to uv light. So most people just use them to protect their lenses.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm

 

[burdock87]

Hmm....thanks for the info!

 

[Garbz]

True that one. Digital sensors aren't sensitive to UV, they are sensitive to IR, hence the IR blocking filter on the sensor. Also lenses generally go a long way to blocking some UV light too. In the days of UV photography lenses were made specially that passed UV light like the UV Nikkors and some Medical Nikkors, other brands probably too. Typically the only time UV filters made a difference on film cameras was at the beach or the snow where a LOT of UV light was present.