My take on the use of UV filters

[peterking]

I'm with Arthur. The only reason I have UV filters on all my lenses is because I do a lot of daytime into the sun shooting. Most times with a good seabreeze blowing salt spray and beech sand at me at the same time.
I'm not going to get into the debate about should or shouldn't, it's just me. Having said that I must remember to remove them when I do other work. This could explain why I'm not 100% happy with some of the results I'm getting.
Thanks Xenedis as you have put this very succinctly.

[nomis]

Sorry. What I should have said first to Xenedis the op.. well written and informative , your work is seriously impressive and backs your ideas by speaking for itself .

[Xenedis]

All,

Thanks for the constructive comments in response to this article.

I did fear that posting about something so contentious (and based on my own fairly strong views on this subject) would potentially result in heated debate and strong opinions, but to my delight it hasn't taken that path at all.

I am glad people gained something from my article, and I hope it presented people with some points for consideration that may be new to them.

[peterb666]

All,
I did fear that posting about something so contentious (and based on my own fairly strong views on this subject)

Knowing those views reasonably well I was very surprised with how well you handled the topic. An excellent article and very well balanced.

[Xenedis]

Knowing those views reasonably well I was very surprised with how well you handled the topic. An excellent article and very well balanced.

Thanks Peter.

I think approaching a sometimes controversial issue with logic rather than emotion is a better approach.

Glad to hear my article was not biased, even though I have made it clear where I stand rather than playing devil's advocate or not taking a stand at all.

[Ozzi Paul]

Nice article.
I do use UV filters, mainly for protection against flying dirt while photographing motorcross racing but also because I live at higher altitudes in the Vic high country. Haven't done any testing but after reading your article I think I will try a few things with some landscape shots and see how things go. Thanks for the info.

[Roosta]

Well that was very indepth and interesting, I was the must have uv person, because I was told I needed it.LOL, Thanks very much.

[old dog]

thanks X....great article and very interesting replies. I have them on most lenses and share some between lenses, but now I`ll have to reconsider just from the clarity point of view. I think I`ll do the air show tomorrow minus them.

[Xenedis]

Well that was very indepth and interesting, I was the must have uv person, because I was told I needed it.LOL, Thanks very much.

Let me a guess: a salesman told you that you needed UV filters... :-)

[ginaturtle]

Let me a guess: a salesman told you that you needed UV filters... :-)

Indeed salesman has said I needed UV Filters on all my lenses, But i am very thankful for the information you have provided. It has saved me countless dollars and explained alot confusion

[Gollum]

Excellent article Xenedis (Should be made a sticky moderators).

I remember reading the same discussion and comments about filters on a U.S. site some years ago. The consensus was they are only needed in very dusty and dirty environments. But when a photographer who does work for National Geographic (or some such prestigious magazine) added.

All of the lens that I take with me on assignment 400mm, 600mm and 1200mm don't nave external filters... so I'm always very careful.

For those who don't know an EF 1200mm second hand sold for over 100,000USD, this is one lens you wouldn't want to scratch.

[TasEric]

Thanks for an interesting discussion.
When I was using film SLR's, I always used a filter.
Before I bought a DSLR, I spoke to a wedding photographer friend who said (unprompted)
"Make sure that you put a UV filter on each lens the moment you take it out of its packaging, and never take it off".

So I did.

But reading what's been said here, I might give it a go with filters off.

[ricktas]

Thanks for an interesting discussion.
When I was using film SLR's, I always used a filter.
Before I bought a DSLR, I spoke to a wedding photographer friend who said (unprompted)
"Make sure that you put a UV filter on each lens the moment you take it out of its packaging, and never take it off".

So I did.

But reading what's been said here, I might give it a go with filters off.

film was affected by UV, thus using filters with film was worthwhile. the filter built into digital sensors does the job for you, so from a need point of view, they are superfluous

[Lianne]

What a great article. Thanks for taking the time to share it. I will now be logging off, getting out my least used old Sigma lenses (from my film camera) and try a few test shots with and without the old UV filters. Perhaps the IQ is better than I think - they have always had the filters on.

[Astroman]

I have removed the UV filters off my lenses after taking many Astro related images with them on, I had a problem where the image would have multiple rings on it. I found out that having the UV filter on it it was close to the lens, causing what they call Newtons Rings

Once I removed the Filter the rings disappeared. Not all that noticeable on bright images, but very noticeable on widefield Astrophoto's

[KeeFy]

I'm on the opposite camp. I have a filter on all my lenses.

I've had a stone fly into my lens (while shooting some rallying) and chip the UV. $80 vs $400 for a new front element for my 70-200? No brainer. I'd bet most... if not everyone is unable to look at a collection of pictures and get at least 90% accuracy in guessing if the pictures were taken with a filter on or off.

I absolutely agree in certain situations you really shouldn't use a filter but in most forms of photography it's no big deal.

[swifty]

I'd bet most... if not everyone is unable to look at a collection of pictures and get at least 90% accuracy in guessing if the pictures were taken with a filter on or off.

I'd agree with you there but that wouldn't be a fair test though. Too many other factors can cause IQ detriments that you wouldn't be able to attribute to a filter or otherwise. I'd bet a good number of people would be able to tell a series of paired photos, one with and one without a filter which is which although likely not at web sizes for the better filters.

But having said that, I'm in the middle on this subject. I don't own a UV or protective filter at all but if I shot subjects that regularly get muck on the lens, then I probably buy a good filter.
I think its good protection for medium force chips etc. but not drops.
I also think its good protection if your photography subjects you to chemical and corrosive agents. Ants are known to spray such chemicals which I wouldn't want on my front element.

[Xenedis]

On the issue of comparing two identical images, one taken with a filter and one without, I'm reminded of the personal experience I had, which I briefly related in my original post.

One night, a friend and I were shooting some twilight cityscapes.

There was also another photographer there, doing the same thing.

She had a multi-coated UV filter on her lens, and she told us she was seeing ghosting and softness in her images, which was apparent when we looked at the preview screen.

We advised her to remove the filter, which she did.

After shooting again, there was a noticeable difference -- the image quality improved.

Introducing potential (or actual) quality-degrading, unnecessary filters into the mix is just something I am personally unwilling to do when it comes to my images.

[arthurking83]

I'm on the opposite camp. I have a filter on all my lenses.

I've had a stone fly into my lens (while shooting some rallying) and chip the UV. $80 vs $400 for a new front element for my 70-200? No brainer. ......

The problem with this comparison(or situation) is that it's moot.

Unless you're willing to test the textile strength of the front element of the lens, there is no use in saying that the filter had protected your lenses front element other than that it took the brunt of the force of the stone.
There is also the situation that had the filter not been there that the lens front element may have simply brushed off the stone without any damage at all, and if that had been the case you could have saved yourself the $80.
The front element of the majority of lenses are much more resilient than a 0.5mm thin wafer of glass is(there may be lenses with less hardy front lens elements, but I've never seen or heard of them).

A while back, I had an old 'broken' lens that finally went to god, but before it did, I tried a few tricks with it in that I used a normal household kitchen scourer on the front element, initially with not much force and gradually with more force, where I ended up probably using as much force as I would with my burnt pots and pans(well.. I'm not a very good cook, but I'm very adept at washing up! )

.. anyhow, not a mark on the lens front element, not a scratch, nothing. I certainly scratched the plastic housing around the glass element and it was easily very obvious that I'd taken to it with a scourer, but the glass itself was completely unmarked.

My opinion is that if the filter was only 'chipped' by flying debris, then the force of the flying debris was probably not high enough to cause damage to the lens element either.

[ApolloLXII]

I've always known that UV filters are pretty much unnecessary as far as UV is concerned but I use them as protection against scratches, fingerprints and dust. It's far easier to clean the surface of the filter rather than risk scratching the lens. A UV filter will provide little or no protection from damage incurred from a heavy impact (from dropping the camera for example) so I only use them to prevent damage to the actual surface of the lens. I use screw on filters and have never had any trouble with the filter getting stuck or cross threaded mainly because it's a simple case of being careful. It all boils down to a matter of preference. To me, it just makes practical sense to have something to protect the lens surface. I'd rather spend $30 to replace the filter rather than having to fork out considerably more to get the lens repaired.