Why A UV Filter Lens For A DSLR Camera?

[Bluester]

Anywhere you go online when looking for a high-definition filter lens there is always a "UV" designation attached to the description of a filter lens. We all know that UV rays do not affect the image sensor of a DSLR camera so why have this feature on filter lenses? And the descriptions do not specify that these UV filter lenses are for film cameras, in fact they are made for digital SLR cameras. Can somebody explain why this is so?

 

[Big Mike]

The only reason that people use them on a DSLR (that I'm aware of) is for physical protection.

So why don't they just make them 'clear' filters and/or call them protection filters? Because 'UV' filters have been around for a long time and people are more likely to buy something that they have heard of.

Personally, I don't use UV filters. I believe that anything you put in front of your lens, is likely to degrade possible image quality. As for physical protection, I would say that the front element of most lenses is much more durable than most people would think...and doesn't necessarily need protection in most cases.

Of course, there are situations where 'stuff' is flying around and more protection for an expensive lens would be a good idea. There is also the possibility that you drop a lens and a filter could act as a sacrificial cushion. However, my personal philosophy is that I'll probably drop a lens every 10,000 photos....but I don't want to degrade my image quality for those 10,000 photos, just for that one time possibly saving the lens from damage.

And, of course, plenty of people use them and love the peace of mind. Different strokes for different folks.

I would just suggest that if people do want to use them for protection, buy good quality ones with anti-reflective coatings.

 

[adamhiram]

I use high quality UV filters such as these on all of my lenses for protection, primarily from small children that like to touch/poke/lick the front element. I have never noticed any image degradation except for the occasional flare from point light sources during night time long exposures, in which case I just remove the filter. I always opted for UV since they were significantly cheaper than clear ones, but I went with a clear filter on my newest lens purchase, and I couldn't even tell there was glass in the filter. Same performance, but why add the extra coating if you don't need it. Some people swear by them, while others will claim they ruin your photos; I find that most of the time it makes no difference in image quality as long as I use good quality filters.

 

[Strodav]

You will find people very passionate on both sides of the issue and it ends up as a personal choice. A good quality UV filter will have minimal impact on IQ. You will have to look hard 1:1 to see any difference. If you put something cheap on a good lens, you will easily see the degradation and are wasting the lens. Modern sensors are less sensitive to UV so you really don’t need a filter to block UV unless you are at higher altitudes. So, you are down to whether you want to protect the front element of your lens. Many will say leaving the lens hood on is enough protection, others feel more comfortable with filter. Personally, I use higher end Hoya filters on all my lenses.

 

[Braineack]

Can somebody explain why this is so?

Usually the same people that tout Sunny 16, 8 and be there, and other film-era adages.

 

[480sparky]

Maybe this will help explain things:

When I was a kid, a lot of television shows were produced at the local level by the stations. One was a cooking show (no, not her!). About a week before Thanksgiving, the show's host had a guest on to demonstrate how she cooked her turkey. The first thing she did was set the bird on the counter, take a large kitchen knife and lop off one end of the turkey.

The host of the show asked the guest why she did that. She stood there, seemingly dumbfounded, unable to answer. She finally said, "Well, I guess that's what my mother always did." Turns out, her mother was in the audience, so they asked her.

Mom said the same thing.... "That's what my mother did as well. I really don't know why, though."

So after the show, mother and daughter called up Grandma and asked her why she cut a chuck of the turkey off before cooking.

Grandma replied, "When Frank and I got married, we were given a roaster as a wedding gift. Problem was, the turkeys we got were always too large to fit into it, so I had to cut some of it off to get it to fit in there."


People are creatures of habit. Sometimes they do things over and over enough it becomes habit, and they no longer question why.

 

[Jeff15]

UV filters are completely unnecessary.....

 

[Fujidave]

The only time I will use UV filters is in the summer when I`m taking photos of the vocalists down on the beach, as I`d rather clean a filter than my lens glass any other time I just make sure the lens hood is on as it`s good enough protection.

 

[Bluester]

Thanks for the responses everyone! I surely appreciate the facts and opinions expressed in here in particular are the effects an extra element in front of the lens will cause on picture quality and the habits of people resulting in the prevalence of the UV features on filter lenses in the market. Indeed, different strokes for different folks. I have three types of filter lenses but most likely I would use the graduated filter only for landscape photography. I apologize to some of you but I tend to gravitate to not using a filter on my lens for picture quality reasons especially in low-light conditions; in this situation you might have to remove the filter lens. Regardless, more responses are welcome.

 

[snowbear]

I have a couple. I also have a couple floppy diskettes. It's a toss up as to which I'll use again.

 

[greybeard]

I use either a B&W or a Hoya premium UV filter on all my lenses because it gives me a feeling of protection. I buy them used off of ebay and have never gotten one that didn't look brand new for no more than $30. I realize that it is probably a waste of money and may even add unwanted reflections but, it just makes me feel better.

 

[Solarflare]

Physical protection.

If your front element gets destroyed, the lens is gone.

If theres a filter in front of that, hopefully only that filter is gone, which represents a much smaller value. Plus the lens might be no longer in production. Good multicoated filters will always be in production.

Its also easier to clean if you are on a race track and the cars / motorbikes / whatever throw dirt onto your camera.

Sure, one could use a clear filter instead - but for some reason nobody offers those.

UV is of no interest, digital sensors are somewhat sensible to UV, but they all have filters on them anyway. Unless you have a conversion, which had these filter replaced.

The loss of image quality is basically none if you use a cheap but high quality multicoated filter, like from Hoya. Its just a thin flat glas.

 

[petrochemist]

I have a couple. I also have a couple floppy diskettes. It's a toss up as to which I'll use again.

If you strip the magnetic media out from the diskettes you can use it as an IR filter - possibly more useful than a UV filter

 

[petrochemist]

Physical protection.

If your front element gets destroyed, the lens is gone.

If theres a filter in front of that, hopefully only that filter is gone, which represents a much smaller value. Plus the lens might be no longer in production. Good multicoated filters will always be in production.

Its also easier to clean if you are on a race track and the cars / motorbikes / whatever throw dirt onto your camera.

Sure, one could use a clear filter instead - but for some reason nobody offers those.

UV is of no interest, digital sensors are somewhat sensible to UV, but they all have filters on them anyway. Unless you have a conversion, which had these filter replaced.

The loss of image quality is basically none if you use a cheap but high quality multicoated filter, like from Hoya. Its just a thin flat glas.

If the front element gets destroyed, it can be repaired costing about twice a top quality UV filter.
There is some evidence suggesting impact damage to the front element is MORE likely with a filter. Filters are brittle & hard enough to damage glass elements.

If using a lens in an environment with salt spray or similar a removable protective layer can be a benefit. With a long telephoto a top quality filter will be needed to avoid degradation, but for most lenses a cheap filter won't be too noticeable in what for most people are relatively rare occasions.

 

[Bluester]

Thanks for the responses everyone! I surely appreciate the facts and opinions expressed in here in particular are the effects an extra element in front of the lens will cause on picture quality and the habits of people resulting in the prevalence of the UV features on filter lenses in the market. Indeed, different strokes for different folks. I have three types of filter lenses but most likely I would use the graduated filter only for landscape photography. I apologize to some of you but I tend to gravitate to not using a filter on my lens for picture quality reasons especially in low-light conditions; in this situation you might have to remove the filter lens. Regardless, more responses are welcome.

Despite my reasons in the above quotes, I have been on a quest for better pictures; I was seeing something missing in my photos by just looking at pictures taken by other photographers. So, I explored what a polarizer lens could do to my own photos. And this did not disappoint me. The only difference a polarizer could do to your photographs is make them darker in low-light conditions. It is still a good practice to have a filter lens on your camera in all lighting situations. And, your pictures taken with a polarizer lens will be easier to edit than the ones without. Also, the problem of darker photos with a filter lens in low-light conditions can always be resolved by a flash.