My take on the use of UV filters

[Xenedis]

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.

Dust doesn't concern me, because it gets everywhere (including on the UV filter itself), and can be blown off.

Fingerprints have never been an issue for me, either. I don't touch the objective element, and I always use my hoods, so I'd have to try very hard indeed to get a globby fingerprint on them.

I've never managed to scratch a lens, either. The optical glass on objective elements is a lot thicker and tougher than people expect. Having said that, I am careful anyway, and certainly use hoods and caps all the time.

It's far easier to clean the surface of the filter rather than risk scratching the lens.

I've found that cleaning filters requires as much effort as does cleaning the lens's objective element.

A UV filter will provide little or no protection from damage incurred from a heavy impact (from dropping the camera for example)

Agreed; my analysis of impact-related accidents in my OP goes into sufficient detail about that.

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.

That comes down to not over-tightening them, and it seems you're doing it the right way.

They don't need 500lbs of torque to stay on; they're threaded, so they're not going anywhere. All that's needed is sufficient tightening such that they won't come loose, but don't need much exertion to unscrew.

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.

It does indeed come down to preference, but based on the analysis I've done, my actual experience (including dropping a lens) and my desire not to introduce any potential or actual image degradation, there's far more reason in my book not to use them.

[kaiser]

I only use filters for effects that can't be obtained any other way- polarizers and NDs.

I try to avoid cleaning the lens element at all, mainly use a blower or canned air for dust etc.

One thing I will say is that I've found the coating on the newer Nikkors to be quite fragile/soft and very prone to scratching.

I also use hoods and also make a point of storing the lenses front element facing up after a bad experience-

I was on a photowalk with a couple of lenses in a Domke shoulder bag, front element facing down. Through the movement of walking and constant bumping, a lens cap was dislodged and it proceeded to rub up against the front element of my 24 1.4 lens. Left a few permanent scratch marks

Usually not a problem with nice deep lens hoods, but ultra wides with their shallow hoods are still quite vulnerable to this- especially if your like me and probably didn't make sure the lens cap was seated properly :/

[I @ M]

I've found that cleaning filters requires as much effort as does cleaning the lens's objective element.

Surely you jest?

Can't filters just go in the dishwasher?

I know lenses can't as they have electrical wires and stuff.

[Xenedis]

Surely you jest?

Not even slightly. I've found filters to be just as annoying to clean as lenses.

Can't filters just go in the dishwasher?

I am the dish washer.

I know lenses can't as they have electrical wires and stuff.

Three of my lenses have weather sealing.

Because we don't have a dishwasher, they go in the laundry instead.

Naturally the 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 go in with the whites, and the 16-35/2.8 goes in with the blacks.

After the washing is done, the clothes dryer does make some horrid noises, though.

[kiwi]

AT least with a Canon you don't need a softener

[Xenedis]

AT least with a Canon you don't need a softener

I wouldn't even bother chucking a Nikon into the laundry -- waste of washing powder.

Anyway, getting back to the topic... :-)

[kiwi]

Really ? Thought the uv filter wars were fought long ago and the rebels won ?

[I @ M]

Anyway, getting back to the topic... :-)

Yep, so bear with me on this one.

If you are a pauper like me and only own a small amount of reasonably valuable lenses does it not make sense to forego the purchase of even excellent quality UV filters at maybe North of $50.00 each and simply purchase insurance for said lenses?

That way if you have an incident ( I won't use the word accident as that is simply a word for an unpremeditated act of stupidity ) the you are covered for the damage to your lens.
As per the example above of yonnies hitting the lens and damaging either the front element or the filter.

If your filter is totalled and the lens survives, is it game over for photography for the day or do you carry multiple filters to cover such an occurrence?
Or do you continue photographing without the destroyed filter in place and then take the risk of damage to the lens ( the stated scenario of having a naked lens ) and just gamble?

A decent insurance policy will probably cost less than multiple expensive UV filters and as well as being able to claim for incident damage you will be covered for fire and theft.

Is your UV filter going to protect your lens when the house burns down or some lowlife steals your gear?

[ApolloLXII]

Yep, so bear with me on this one.

If you are a pauper like me and only own a small amount of reasonably valuable lenses does it not make sense to forego the purchase of even excellent quality UV filters at maybe North of $50.00 each and simply purchase insurance for said lenses?

That way if you have an incident ( I won't use the word accident as that is simply a word for an unpremeditated act of stupidity ) the you are covered for the damage to your lens.
As per the example above of yonnies hitting the lens and damaging either the front element or the filter.

If your filter is totalled and the lens survives, is it game over for photography for the day or do you carry multiple filters to cover such an occurrence?
Or do you continue photographing without the destroyed filter in place and then take the risk of damage to the lens ( the stated scenario of having a naked lens ) and just gamble?

A decent insurance policy will probably cost less than multiple expensive UV filters and as well as being able to claim for incident damage you will be covered for fire and theft.

Is your UV filter going to protect your lens when the house burns down or some lowlife steals your gear?

I never buy expensive UV filters for the simple reason that they don't add a thing to image quality. Their main purpose is to prevent the front lens element from possible damage in much the same way as some cars have plastic covers over their headlights to prevent damage from stones. UV filters are never going to protect against any kind of hard impact from a rock or a stone or even the lens being dropped but I find them good enough to stop the front lens glass from being exposed to accidental scratching and fingerprints.

A good insurance policy is a wise investment however and always recommended if you have quite a lot of gear or depend on your cameras and lenses for a living.

[KeeFy]

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.

The drop bit is still subjective. When i first got my 500D with the kit lens, i mounted it on a cheap tripod and when the wind blew, the lens came crashing down. The filter thread was badly dented but came off easily without any force needed. I'd imagine that the lens would have the filter thread dented in should there be no filter on. Again, can't say for sure but that's what i feel.

[KeeFy]

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.

With 2 identical images, yes it will be more possible to pick one out. That's the thing, a beautiful image IS a beautiful image, regardless of filter on or off.

[KeeFy]

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.

Good point! I recall watching someone abuse a 50 1.8 with a hammer and all, the lens didn't scratch. But the coating did come off. I guess it's not soo bad if the coating did come off vs a chip on the font element. If you're willing to possibly sacrifice your lens coating, but all means go for it. I'm still on the opposite end of this debate

[KeeFy]

I never buy expensive UV filters for the simple reason that they don't add a thing to image quality. Their main purpose is to prevent the front lens element from possible damage in much the same way as some cars have plastic covers over their headlights to prevent damage from stones. UV filters are never going to protect against any kind of hard impact from a rock or a stone or even the lens being dropped but I find them good enough to stop the front lens glass from being exposed to accidental scratching and fingerprints.

A good insurance policy is a wise investment however and always recommended if you have quite a lot of gear or depend on your cameras and lenses for a living.

A decent UV filter does have it advantages over a cheap UV. There is a whole science behind it... but that's another topic for another thread.

[Xenedis]

With 2 identical images, yes it will be more possible to pick one out. That's the thing, a beautiful image IS a beautiful image, regardless of filter on or off.

The photographer who was shooting nearby wasn't happy with the quality of the images she was producing, and she approached us.

She was dissatisfied with the image quality before we knew she was using a UV filter.

And she wasn't comparing her images to other images she had shot.

Once she took the filter off, upon our advice, she was much happier.

That speaks volumes.

[Xenedis]

I never buy expensive UV filters for the simple reason that they don't add a thing to image quality.

They're not designed to 'add' image quality.

They're designed to filter out UV light which reduces quality. Of course, with digital sensors it's a moot point. And UV light tends to be more of a problem at higher altitudes, and with film, which is sensitive to UV light.

The problem is that UV filters often subtract image quality!

[jjphoto]

... I do not believe UV filters are necessary or beneficial, and I specifically will not use them...

I think you would quickly change your tune if you photographed drag racing or other motorsport events where you are commonly subjected to flying debris, such as dust, dirt, rubber, even big chunks of tyres etc. I have a couple of damaged UV filters, but pristine lenses, to support my case too.

JJ

[KeeFy]

The photographer who was shooting nearby wasn't happy with the quality of the images she was producing, and she approached us.

She was dissatisfied with the image quality before we knew she was using a UV filter.

And she wasn't comparing her images to other images she had shot.

Once she took the filter off, upon our advice, she was much happier.

That speaks volumes.

Yes it does. But was the filter a cheap one? It could have been dirty + non coated as well.

Most newbie photographers buy cheap filters at exorbitant prices. It is one of the main ways how photogear shops earns their $. My friend who works in a gear shop in Singapore commonly sells 58mm no brand filters for about $40 AUD with raw item cost in the single digit. No coating, nothing. Imagine how bad the flaring and ghosting will be?

[Xenedis]

I think you would quickly change your tune if you photographed drag racing or other motorsport events where you are commonly subjected to flying debris, such as dust, dirt, rubber, even big chunks of tyres etc. I have a couple of damaged UV filters, but pristine lenses, to support my case too.

I don't (and am unlikely to) shoot sports; but I shot motocross once (without a filter on the lens I had with me, which can take front-mounted filters; my super-tele cannot). Yes, there was dust, but it blows off.

If big chunks of rubber tyres are flying in your direction, you'll need more than a filter.

If you shoot events where flying gravel is a possibility, then the extra tough filters I mentioned in my OP might be beneficial, so those would be your best bet if you insist on using filters.

I'll continue to shoot without them.

Yes it does. But was the filter a cheap one? It could have been dirty + non coated as well.

As per what I related, it was a multi-coated filter. May have been a Hoya HMC; it was a few years ago.

[ApolloLXII]

They're not designed to 'add' image quality.

They're designed to filter out UV light which reduces quality. Of course, with digital sensors it's a moot point. And UV light tends to be more of a problem at higher altitudes, and with film, which is sensitive to UV light.

The problem is that UV filters often subtract image quality!

I have used a UV filter from the first time that I bought my first camera over 4 years ago and have NEVER had any issues with image quality. It's alright to express one's opinion but you seem to be getting a tad worked up over something that is a personal choice. Some people see the need for them and some, like yourself, don't which is fine.

[ricktas]

I have used a UV filter from the first time that I bought my first camera over 4 years ago and have NEVER had any issues with image quality. It's alright to express one's opinion but you seem to be getting a tad worked up over something that is a personal choice. Some people see the need for them and some, like yourself, don't which is fine.

Agreed, but as you state, EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion, and to post information relevant to the topic. It is up to each member to decide for themselves how much of that information they want to take on board, use, or ignore. It seems to me you are getting worked up over another members post as well.