Will cheap UV filters still do the trick?

[PropilotBW]

I have read a lot of reviews on UV filters. Some say to buy the best. Others say the cheap-o's will work just fine. I was just getting into photography when Wolf Camera was going out of business, so I bought up a couple of their Quantaray 52mm plain UV filters; mostly for lens protection.
Are these filters keeping my photos from reaching their potential?
I recently purchased a used Nikkor 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 and it came with a Tiffen 77mm UV filter. I have read that this is a good filter even though the price is low.
Thoughts? Comments?

 

[Kolia]

Why do you need UV blocked ? I read somewhere that UV filters where for film. Digital doesn't need it.

Any extra glass in front of your lens will "degrade" your image. It might not be very noticeable.

I prefer to rely on my hood for protection.

 

[greybeard37 9]

I always go for the least expensive multi-coated ones I can find. I have one of these on order " Sigma EX DG 67mm Multi-Coated UV Filter: ", figured it was descent because it was Sigma and multi-coated which should cause less internal reflection. No matter how much you pay, the added element in your lens is going to cause some IQ loss. How much depends on the situation. But, I have never felt comfortable without a UV filter on my lenses. It's just a personal thing though.

 

[molested_cow]

I suppose it depends on how good your lens is. I won't get a z-rated tire for a Smart car, neither will I get cheap $300/set tire for a Ferrari. If it's a lens that is known to perform very well and sharp, then I will get the best filter I can afford. If not, a decent one will do. If you are shooting with lens flare or into the light source, I'd remove the filter.

 

[SCraig]

This topic is not going to end well. Filter discussions, and there are dozens of them, never do.

 

[pgriz]

Yeah, filter/no filter tend to become religious discussions. I say, test it. Take a picture with the camera on a tripod, etc. to give you the sharpest possible view of a highly detailed subject, with and without the filter, and then see. Check the same under conditions of backlighting, as additional glass can make flare more obvious. In my case, I found one filter gave me rather poor results, and another tended to increase the flare and reduce the contrast, so nowadays I use the lens hood for protection. If I was shooting under sandy/dusty/muddy conditions, I will probably want to use a clear filter, but then it's about balancing results with possible effects.

 

[cgipson1]

This topic is not going to end well. Filter discussions, and there are dozens of them, never do.

Exactly... this is a very polarized, and volatile topic. Most of us just use a lens hood to "protect" our lenses when using them (with the added advantage of blocking unwanted, stray light)... because as mentioned, the fewer things you have between the subject and your objective lens, the better the IQ! You can see from my sig what I have, and I do not, and will not use "protective filters. I will use filters that actually do something useful, like GND, ND, and CPLs, when needed for the shot I want.

I know that if I drop a lens with a large hood on it, the plastic is flexible and will provide a lot of shock absorption, and will keep the objective lens from actually hitting anything.

I know if I only have a UV filter on the lens and drop it, that filter will transfer 100% of the impact onto the rest of the lens, which will probably throw the inner workings out of alignment,. There is also the possibility that if the filter glass breaks, it may scratch the lens as badly or worse than not having a filter at all.

It is a personal choice, but most pro's do not use protective filters... a lot of hobbyists do.

 

[SCraig]

... It is a personal choice, but most pro's do not use protective filters... a lot of hobbyists do.

Guess I'm a hobbyist because I use filters on most of my lenses most of the time.

One really cool thing I've found about filters is that they aren't a permanent part of the lens. Put them on when you want, take them off when you want. Put them on one lens, leave them off another lens. I seldom use one on my 150-500 because it is usually stretched to its limits to start with and I don't want to give up the IQ. I do use them on my walkaround lenses because they tend to get banged around a bit more and I'm not worried as much about the minor loss of IQ. Sometimes I do put one on my 150-500, sometimes I take them off my other lenses. They aren't permanent.

 

[JustJazzie]

I don't know much about equipment, but I DO know that my cheap eBay filter downgraded my images substantially, and gave me such soft focus. I don't use them anymore.

 

[PropilotBW]

I will try to post test pics shortly of with/without.

 

[cgipson1]

... It is a personal choice, but most pro's do not use protective filters... a lot of hobbyists do.

Guess I'm a hobbyist because I use filters on most of my lenses most of the time.

One really cool thing I've found about filters is that they aren't a permanent part of the lens. Put them on when you want, take them off when you want. Put them on one lens, leave them off another lens. I seldom use one on my 150-500 because it is usually stretched to its limits to start with and I don't want to give up the IQ. I do use them on my walkaround lenses because they tend to get banged around a bit more and I'm not worried as much about the minor loss of IQ. Sometimes I do put one on my 150-500, sometimes I take them off my other lenses. They aren't permanent.

As I said.. most PRO's don't (not all) and a lot of Hobbyists do (not all)! Only you know how you define yourself... no one can really do that. (and you know that wasn't meant to be a dig at anyone, least of all... you! !

I do agree with the take off / put on concept.. and that is what I do when there is cause to do so (like blowing sand). But even then, I go with a clear multi-coated, not a UV filter.

 

[pixmedic1]

personally speaking, and this is just my opinion...
I use lens hoods for protection.
the only filter i would suggest is a ND filter.
digital cameras have a UV filter built in.
if you really want to try UV filters, pick one up and try it. if you don't like the results, you can always take it off your lens.
I still have a few cheap-o filters somewhere in my closet. tried them, didn't like them, never used them again.
the debate on whether filters are added protection for a lens...thats a never ending debate. the answer is...its your gear, do what YOU want with it because at the end of the day, for better or worse, its all on you.

 

[KmH]

'Protection' filters, UV or clear, cause more problems than they solve.

The air gap they add promotes lens flare, even if they are the more expensive coated filters.

The glass in cheap filters is rarely optically flat, usually lower quality glass that isn't optically clear, may not even be glass, usually soften focus, and often cause other un-wanted image artifacts (ask Buckster).
The glass in cheap filters is usually mounted in an aluminum mount. A lot of the more expensive filters are mounted in brass. Brass won't corrode by electrolysis when in contact with a dissimilar metal like aluminum will.

The glass in filters is way thinner than the glass that is a front lens element/group. The glass in filters has way less support around it edges than the front lens element/group.
Consequently, it's a lot easier to break a glass filter then it is to break a front lens element/group.

When a filter does break, the sharp shards of broken glass are usually pushed back against the front lens element/group the filter was 'protecting'.
It's not uncommon for those sharp shards to gouge/scratch the front lens element the filter was supposed to 'protect'.
Plus, the broken filter has to be unscrewed, likely dragging those sharp shards across the front of the front lens element.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...attered-uv-filter-resulting-lens-scratch.html
LensRentals.com - Front Element Scratches
Dirty lens article

That front lens element/group is a lot more robust than many realize, and using a lens hood offers true front lens protection.
A lens hood's main purpose is to minimizes lens flare, and the hood offers a surprising amount of lens impact protection, with none of the downside issues 'protection' filters have.

 

[Kolia]

Cgipson1 makes a great point when he says to use a filter when you want it to DO something.

Question to the "Protection Filter" guys: what is the filter protecting against ?

The only situation I can think of that a filter would be preferable to a hood would be when shooting in high winds (from a car) or maybe by the sea side with salty spray.

The rest of the time, impact and fingers will be covered by a good hood.

 

[bc_steve]

Apart from the effects on image quality there is also the cost of buying UV or clear filters to protect your lens.

Once upon a time I had one of those filters to protect an 18-55mm kit lens. Looking back it was quite silly to spend $60-80 to try to protect a lens that's only worth about $150. I have better lenses now and I don't put anything on them except for a polarizer or ND for a particular shot. I don't have any scratches on any of my glass but if I did I could probably replace a lens using the money I saved on not buying clear filters!