UV lens

[jeremyamayora]

Does using a UV lens take away from the quality of the photo.

 

[Big Mike]

Do you mean a UV filter?

Pretty much any time you put something in front of your lens, it is going to affect the quality of the image, usually in a negative way. A good filter shouldn't show any visible difference, but a cheaper one may very well.

Also, adding a filter in front of the lens, greatly increases the chance of lens flare, which can lead to flare spots, lack of contrast & saturation etc. Better quality (more expensive) filters may have single or multiple coatings to help prevent this, but the chance is still there.

Digital camera are designed not to be sensitive to UV light, so a UV filter doesn't do you any good. But people use them as a physical protection shield for their lenses.

 

[MLeeK]

Do you mean UV Filter?
Yes, it can. It is putting another piece of glass in front of your sensor for the light/image to travel through. If it is a poor piece of glass it will degrade the image.

 

[jeremyamayora]

I did mean filter sorry about that. I was told by a local shop to always us one to protect my lens. But I thought it would down graded my image

 

[scorpion_tyr]

UV/Haze filters are used to remove the haze from UV rays that the human eye can't see, but the image sensor can and can dull your images a little bit. Because of the minimal impact on the images many photographers use them to help protect the lens as well. Some say the UV filters degrade the image because you're adding another piece of glass and shouldn't be used all the time. I disagree, the degredation is very minimal and most of the time, not even noticeable. The most expensive UV filter I've bought cost $40.00. The cheapest lens I've bought new cost $100.00. UV filters will always be cheaper than buying a new lens. Keeping a UV filter on all the time will protect the front glass element of your lens from scratches and stuff. The glass in UV filters also breaks a lot easier than the glass in your lens. This is important because if you drop a lens the UV filter glass will usually break first, and that breaking of the glass absorbs some of the shock and helps prevent the glass inside your lens from breaking. I had a mishap once where my entire camera bag came undone while riding a horse at full gallop. Camera, lenses, flash, everything fell out onto a rocky road from 6-8 feet while also traveling about... however fast a horse can run... $80.00 in UV filters saved over $2,000.00 in lenses. All of my UV filters were broken, but the glass in the lenses were just fine.

 

[jeremyamayora]

Sounds like the way to go thanks

 

[analog.universe]

They do certainly increase the chance of flare, and I take mine off if I'm in a situation where I expect to flare and don't want to. If you use a cheapo filter, flare won't be your only issue. But, look for a nice multicoated one from a reputable company (B+W, Hoya, etc), and it will have minimal impact on the image in most situations.

I'm pretty sure the dropping and breaking protection thing can go either way, I've seen both sides of that story. But they are really nice protection against airborne debris / splatter / etc...

 

[bazooka]

UV/Haze filters are used to remove the haze from UV rays that the human eye can't see, but the image sensor can and can dull your images a little bit. Because of the minimal impact on the images many photographers use them to help protect the lens as well. Some say the UV filters degrade the image because you're adding another piece of glass and shouldn't be used all the time. I disagree, the degredation is very minimal and most of the time, not even noticeable. The most expensive UV filter I've bought cost $40.00. The cheapest lens I've bought new cost $100.00. UV filters will always be cheaper than buying a new lens. Keeping a UV filter on all the time will protect the front glass element of your lens from scratches and stuff. The glass in UV filters also breaks a lot easier than the glass in your lens. This is important because if you drop a lens the UV filter glass will usually break first, and that breaking of the glass absorbs some of the shock and helps prevent the glass inside your lens from breaking. I had a mishap once where my entire camera bag came undone while riding a horse at full gallop. Camera, lenses, flash, everything fell out onto a rocky road from 6-8 feet while also traveling about... however fast a horse can run... $80.00 in UV filters saved over $2,000.00 in lenses. All of my UV filters were broken, but the glass in the lenses were just fine.

You don't use lenscaps?

 

[KmH]

I did mean filter sorry about that. I was told by a local shop to always us one to protect my lens. But I thought it would down graded my image

Protect from what?

Check out this article from a lens rental place............LensRentals.com - Front Element Scratches

And this YouTube video.

 

[gkinney]

I had a recent mishap with a drop and (I Feel) the UV filter protected my lens (See my other posts). You will always hear of both sides of this subject, for me and how clumsy I can be, I will always have one on. However I buy Nikons Clear NC Glass Filters (Not UV).

Ultimately Caps and Hoods are your best bet, but sometimes you can loose your cap and it will be that day you drop your camera.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I did mean filter sorry about that. I was told by a local shop to always us one to protect my lens. But I thought it would down graded my image

Protect from what?

Check out this article from a lens rental place............LensRentals.com - Front Element Scratches

And this YouTube video.

^^^^^that. and had it been Nikon, everything hitting the glass would've shattered

 

[Buckster]

UV/Haze filters are used to remove the haze from UV rays that the human eye can't see, but the image sensor can and can dull your images a little bit.

Actually, that was sort of true for film (they don't "remove haze from UV rays", they block UV light), but digital image sensors are not sensitive to UV light, so it doesn't do anything in that respect, unless you're shooting film still.

Because of the minimal impact on the images many photographers use them to help protect the lens as well.

"Minimal impact on the images" tells us that there is some impact (read: degradation of image quality) on the images. How much depends on the quality of the filter and the conditions at the time of use.

Some say the UV filters degrade the image because you're adding another piece of glass and shouldn't be used all the time. I disagree, the degredation is very minimal and most of the time, not even noticeable.

The very sentence structure indicates that some degradation of the image always occurs with the use of filters, even if that's "minimal". The sentence structure also tells us that "most of the time" it's not even noticeable. Well, that means that "some of the time" it is indeed noticeable.

The questions then become:

1. Are you okay with "minimal" degradation to ALL of your images on the off chance that a thin, fragile, piece of glass not designed to protect a lens, not strengthened or tempered or toughened at all for that task, will protect your lens?

2. Are you okay with it being noticeable "some of the time"? And when will that be, exactly? Will it be on the killer once in a lifetime shot you managed to pull off? Hope not...

The most expensive UV filter I've bought cost $40.00. The cheapest lens I've bought new cost $100.00. UV filters will always be cheaper than buying a new lens. Keeping a UV filter on all the time will protect the front glass element of your lens from scratches and stuff.

Unless shards of glass from a breaking filter flying toward it damage it, of course.

The glass in UV filters also breaks a lot easier than the glass in your lens.

That's because it's not made to protect anything, including lenses.

Related thread going on elsewhere here on the forum: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ed-nikon-d700-camea-lens-saved-uv-filter.html

Ganked from DPReview:

A few points

1. Photo gear shops make good money on UV filters and bags. It's stuff they can sell in addition to the camera. Or give away as an enticement.
2. Digital sensors are unlike film. We used UV filters (light yellow tint) and Skylight filters (light pink tint) often. While film was sensitive to UV light, digital sensors are not and hence do not need UV filters in even bright sunlight
3. Manufacturers STILL MAKE UV filters - they are not lens covers, lens protectors (I think there is one) - they are filters - that means they are not designed to be impact resistant or super strong - they are designed to filter light. If they were designed to be lens protectors, they would be designed strong.
4. UV filters add two glass/air interfaces into the optical path.
   1. Every glass/air interface means there is just one more way to cause reflections and flare. That's why the better and more expensive filters are multi-coated.
   2. Every glass/air interface means there is more risk to collect dust specks, stray hair, smudges.
   3. Every glass/air interface means there is the possibility that the glass is not perfectly flat. Unflat or rough glass reduces sharpness. How much, well that is what the debate is about and the reason why better filters cost more money.

 

[KmH]

I had a recent mishap with a drop and (I Feel) the UV filter protected my lens (See my other posts).

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ed-nikon-d700-camea-lens-saved-uv-filter.html

Unfortunately, "I Feel" has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history to be a less than reliable quantitative, or even qualitative measure.

 

[jeremyamayora]

Protect from what?

Check out this article from a lens rental place............LensRentals.com - Front Element Scratches

And this YouTube video.

YouTube Link: http://youtu.be/vzOLbMPe0u8

Wow that's hard to believe but I understand. Thanks

 

[cepwin]

This is very confusing for a n00b. So UV filters can protect your lens from smudges, dirt, etc but on a drop it can even be worse??? But some people swear it saved their tail feathers??? It was surprising the class took all that hitting and *didn't* break! I guess that would be an argument that the UV filters don't really protect..