My take on the use of UV filters

[Kym]

Facts: Any filter will increase the chance of lens flare and any more glass between the sensor and the subject will have some effect on IQ (noticeable or not).

Like anything in photography its a trade off. YMMV

As for lens protection, esp from dropping, a UV filter is nowhere near as useful as a lens hood.

If you want to use a UV filter go-ahead, if not don't.

Personally I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.

[Xenedis]

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 good to hear that you haven't experienced image quality as a result of using filters.

Do you ever shoot outdoors at night, such as cityscapes or other scenes where there are point sources of light? This in particular is where you'll see UV filters having a detrimental impact on 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.

Not at all.

I'm simply stating both facts and my opinions about these filters.

You can decide for yourself whether to use filters. Your choice has no bearing on me. All that interests me is avoiding detrimental impacts to image quality in my images, and educating others on the issue of filters. The rest is up to them.

[Xenedis]

As for lens protection, esp from dropping, a UV filter is nowhere near as useful as a lens hood.

The only filters I'd take seriously as far as impact protection (from flying debris and bumps, not from drops) is the Hoya HD line, but even so, I'm not about to invest in those.

Personally I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.

Ditto.

[Cage]

As Hamlet would have said....... "To UV, or not to UV; that is the question:"

[Geoff79]

Great thread. Thanks for a very interesting read.

If I'm not using another filter I always have the UV filter on my lens. Can't really blame anyone or make excuses for it. It just came with the camera and I've always had it on there, well, just because. In my head it was mostly for protection more than anything else, but there's some very good points in here that make me wonder if I do actually need it. And if it honestly doesn't offer any resistance to glare in a shot, then maybe I'll try to go without for a while.

The main thing I was thinking as I read this, was that I went through decades of using the smaller point and shoot cameras which obviously never had any filters on them. And the lenses on them were always fine, so why now do I get so over-protective? Granted, an SLR lens is worth a hell of a lot more money, but maybe that is all I'm being. A bit too over-protective.

[Cage]

Thanks for the ' Thanks ' Lianne.

I thought the thread needed a little levity.

[ApolloLXII]

[QUOTE=Xenedis;939365]It's good to hear that you haven't experienced image quality as a result of using filters.

Do you ever shoot outdoors at night, such as cityscapes or other scenes where there are point sources of light? This in particular is where you'll see UV filters having a detrimental impact on image quality.

Unfortunately, I don't get much time for photography as this annoying little matter of having to live a life keeps getting in the way. I've only ever done one night shoot and that was when I was visiting Brisbane and I took my shots from the 9th floor of the hotel I was staying at. I can't tell you if I had the UV filter on or off for that as I was half full of bourbon & coke at the time but I wasn't too unhappy with the results.

My apologies for "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." mainly because I forgot to put the at the end of it as it was never intended as a personal dig . Like a lot of stuff, there are pros and cons with everything and if I was a pro photographer looking to make salesworthy or prize winning images I probably would take the UV filter off to make sure I got the best image possible but, having said that, as a means of front element protection for someone who doesn't have a lot of money to spare for lens repairs, I like having a little extra insurance against scratches etc.

[RyanIAm]

An interesting video on the subject:

http://youtu.be/-e9TUIC-Dtk

[Xenedis]

My apologies for "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." mainly because I forgot to put the at the end of it as it was never intended as a personal dig .

Not a problem at all. I didn't take it too hard. ;-)

Like a lot of stuff, there are pros and cons with everything and if I was a pro photographer looking to make salesworthy or prize winning images I probably would take the UV filter off to make sure I got the best image possible

At the end of the day it comes down to personal choice.

I'm not a professional photographer either (by that term, I mean someone whose main income is derived from photography); but in spite of that I set a high standard for myself, and notwithstanding my lack of confidence in a filter as a protective device, I'm not keen to introduce something which could have a negative effect on the quality of my images, especially when I tend to shoot into point sources of light and have seen first-hand how even 'good' filters can cause image quality degradation.

[Dylan & Marianne]

because I'm a CPL junkie I guess by default I'm on the no side of the debate simply because another filter is constantly on the front of my lenses.
there have been 2 times when I have dropped a lens on to hard surfaces - the first was glass first with a UV filter on - UV filter mangled, no damage to lens (24-70 2.8) - that's just anecdote though - I can't say I'd condone using a UV for the express reason of 'just in case I drop my lens' ---> be more careful is far better a solution lol

[Xenedis]

I'm a CPL junkie

Interesting. That's the one useful filter I rarely ever use.

I use GNDs and NDs almost all the time for 'scape shots, but I practically never use a polariser.

I guess with a lot of what I shoot, it's not a hugely beneficial filter.

[arthurking83]

..... 'just in case I drop my lens' ---> be more careful is far better a solution lol

I suppose there may even be an argument put forth in that the use of a 'protective filter' could lull the owner into a false sense of security (and not intentionally tho!) that knowing that the filter is there(subconsciously), they're more likely to get themselves into a situation where they place the gear in 'harms way' or may be more accidentally prone.

I could be classified as one of the most accident prone individuals lucky to still be (only just)walking this planet, and yet one thing that's never happened to me(as a photographer) is a gear related mishap.
I don't think that I'm prone to being extra cautious over my gear in any way either.

I've always had thought of concocting a process of proving disproving the notion that a protective filter could provide any protection especially from flying debris, this thread has rekindled that interest, and I have a few ideas on how to best go about it.

But, in one of my former jobs as a courier, one of the most, if not the most, annoying aspect for me at least, has been the number of times I've had my hands cut open by flying stones.
Generally they seem to get wedged in between truck tyres, or within the tread pattern of the tyre itself, but over the years, I've had my hands sliced nicely by these flying stones(or whatever they've been.. as sometimes you never actually say the culprit.
But there is one thing I am sure of. If a stone was to hit my hand as whatever force, the impact may cut the skin and cause a bruise for a few days and you bleed profusely for a few hours, but I'd rather this one solitary stone hit my hand rather than a million shards of glass at a similar force(all impaling themselves as glass splinters), as well as a stone/rock or whatever debris is attracted to the front of your camera.

We know from common sense that a rock at a decent velocity is going to easily shatter through a wafer thin protective element.. this is simply common sense(except for this HD glass from Hoya .. we've seen the 'videos' but exactly how effective they are may still only be guesswork).
So, knowing that the flying debris is going to penetrate the wafer thin glass protective element, but also knowing that this glass element has some Newtonian level common sense about it, it will reduce the impact of the flying debris on the front of the lens. The amount of reduction power is probably only going to be a guess on almost anyone's part but we're confident that the debris will still get through.
The thin wedge of air between the filter and the glass provides zero impact protection from the protective filter, and we know that from physics that almost all energy is transferred from one body to another and that very little energy is lost in an impact such as this. So all that will happen is that the protective filter sill eliminates some of the force, and that percentage of (eliminated)force will be proportional to the original force of the flying glass crushing debris. So that a larger object will lose proportionally less energy than will a much slower and lighter flying debris.
If the larger object is the one to find your lens(as they tended to find my fingers and hands) then the point is moot.. your lens will get damaged, but you also lose the value of the filter too.
But if the object is slower and/or lighter which dramatically lowers the energy count of the debris, then again, the filter does provide for impact protection, but the quality of the protection is questionable.
That is, if the force is lower then the chances of damage occurring to the lens without the protective filter may not have eventuated anyhow!

It's all about common sense, avoiding flying debris and keeping your lens clean on a regular basis.
I think the one thing that a protective filter may also discourage, is more regular cleaning of the front element.
A soft piece of cloth is hardly to be considered as the arch nemesis of the hardy sturdy resilient glass front element(some consumer level lenses use plastic, so they may not even count, due to their prices).
A regular cleaning of the lens is something that should be done. The build up of dust and gump and goop and haze could end up being more of a danger to damage to front lenses than the cleaning process itself.

[Greg Johnston]

Thanks for a very informative article.

[Dylan & Marianne]

good points arthur - I've had the opportunity to shoot in some pretty extreme conditions in iceland with dust flying around at a million miles an hour. I didn't take the GNDs out for fear of getting scratches or dropping them and exposure bracketed most shots which needed it -I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on whether any type of screw on filter might help protect the front end of the lens in that scenario (the rest of the camera I hid away in a kata rain jacket)

conditions like standing in the middle of this dust:

[muggins]

A big thanks for a well written article, very thought provoking if i can ask the experienced members on here if the use of uv filters would have any bearing on autofocus because after i removed the uv filter my d5ooo seems to focus slightly faster or is it my imagination.
Thanks in advance,
Muggins.
AKA Steve.

[Lazyshooter]

For years I always used a UV filter but now I do not. My thinking was that I am spending a lot of money (for me) to get the best image quality possible so why put another piece of glass in the way which serves no real purpose. Also, in the years of using a UV filter I never scratched or broke the filter so I thought that I mustn't really need it to protect the lens.

Anyway, yesterday I was carrying my older camera which did have a UV filter on the lens. I must of been careless because later I found the UV filter was broken, even though the lens cap was on (maybe I bumped or dropped the camera). Luckily, the lens was fine. This may be interpreted two ways; 1) the UV filter saved the front element from damage by taking the force of the impact or 2) The UV filter is more fragile than the lens and did nothing to protect the lens. I am inclined to go with option two but I can't be certain.

[arthurking83]

..... I am inclined to go with option two but I can't be certain.

Without scientific testing, you can never be certain.

it goes without saying that there are some situations where a 'protective' filter can actually protect a lens(from damage).

First up, I have to say that I'm in the anti filter use brigade .. and probably the #1 member of it too!

But a recent story on a website:

HERE

Shows how a filter of any kind could provide some form of protection for the lens's front element.
The shower of sparks looks 'impressive', but what looks even more impressive is the closeup of the damage to the very expensive Nikon 14-24/2.8

This kind of reminded me of a photo I took a few months back of a show of sparks from a metal grinding/arc welding scene I took.
The difference between my shot and this one in the link .. I was smart enough to stand way back with a 105mm lens!

OK.. may sound like Mr Chicken Goes to the Welders Workshop .. but hey! .. my lens never got damaged by the sparks I was careful to stand at a distance where the sparks were falling short of.
I actually started off shooting with a 28-75mm lens, but then realised the possibility of sparks hitting both camera/lens or myself .. so I changed lenses.

I still don't have any protective filters for any of my lenses tho!

[Epicaricacy]

An interesting video on the subject:

http://youtu.be/-e9TUIC-Dtk

lol - love it.. "The times have changed, but the sale pitch from the salesman hasn't, trying to sell you these as if they really do cut out UV haze. It's all bollocks"

[TasEric]

Why not get Mythbusters to address the issues involved with UV filters and answer the question once and for all .

[rodw]

Why not get Mythbusters to address the issues involved with UV filters and answer the question once and for all .

Digitalrev TV on YouTube has quite a funny take on this and show that you are better off without. I have got filters on all my lenses (I claim ignorance about digital when I bought them). I had them on my film lenses for 20 years and when I was cleaning one up for sale on eBay, I dropped it on a tiled floor which smashed the filter. The good thing was I bent the filter, not the lens so it was still saleable. My first film SLR I bought at school ended up with a very scratched lens because it did not have a filter.