My take on the use of UV filters

[Xenedis]

We've all heard the UV filter debates before, but I decided to produce an article on my blog (http://xenedis.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/the-uv-filter-debate/) explaining dispassionately and hopefully objectively the reason why the use of UV filters isn't such a good idea.

At the risk of igniting debate (and let's keep it civil if it does go that way), I have reproduced it here.

Hopefully it will be beneficial to those who aren't sure where they stand on the use of UV filters.

Some disclaimers:

It's to be remembered that, while I have kept as objective as possible, the views set forth are simply my own views from the perspective of someone who is in the "anti-filter" camp. I have used logic to support my stance on the use of these filters.

Some people will agree with my views, and some people will not agree. The reader can decide, so without further preamble, here it is:


The UV Filter Debate

The debate about the use of ultra-violet (UV) filters (or not) is one of those issues which polarises (pardon the pun) the photography community.

There have probably been more arguments over use of UV filters than there have been Canon vs. Nikon skirmishes.

My own position on the use of UV filters is well documented and places me very firmly in the “against” camp. I do not believe UV filters are necessary or beneficial, and I specifically will not use them.

To explain why, I’ll firstly explain why people might buy these filters. The two main reasons are:


to filter out UV light; and
to protect the lens.

Filtration of UV light might be one reason for the use of such a filter, but in the digital age, and unless you’re shooting at high altitudes, it’s not necessary to use a UV filter, as digital sensors are nowhere near as sensitive to UV light as film.

The second reason concerns “protection”, and I use the term very loosely, as I do not believe a UV filter provides effective protection for a lens.

Firstly one must define what sort of protection is desirable. A person might use a UV filter in a protective capacity to prevent any or all of the following:


dust;
moisture;
fingerprints; and
impact.

Let’s look at each of the above undesirable elements and assess the effectiveness or merit of a UV filter for that form of protection.

1. Dust

I do not consider dust to be a problem. It blows off. In as much as dust can land on a lens’s objective element, it can also land on a filter. Either way, it’s going to be necessary to remove dust in order to clean the glass.

2. Moisture

Like dust, water can be removed from a lens’s objective element. It wipes off. It doesn’t harm a lens, and when shooting in inclement weather or conditions that would otherwise cause water to contact a lens (eg, sea spray), there is going to be some time spent wiping water off glass.

Some Canon lenses specifically require a filter (the type of filter is not specified) to complete the weather sealing capability of the lens, as the objective element moves as the lens focuses or zooms. One such example is the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens, whose objective element moves as the focal range changes, but this movement is within the lens’s outer barrel; in other words, the lens’s entire structure does not change in length, but the recessed lens does move along the inside of the barrel’s construction.

3. Fingerprints

Some people might use a filter to avoid getting fingerprints on a lens. Again, fingerprints can be removed. Personally, I have never found fingerprints to be an issue; I simply don’t get them on my lenses, and as I’ll discuss later, there are more effective preventative measures.

4. Impact

This is the clincher. Many people buy UV filters in the believe it will protect their lenses from impact. What sort of impact?

The scenarios can vary widely, but let’s look at an extreme example.

Firstly, there’s the dreaded lens drop. People drop lenses. I’ve done so myself. A UV filter offers absolutely no protection whatsoever from an accidental drop. Simple physics explains why.

In most cases, the objective element is recessed into the front of the lens, ironically due to the need to provide a rim for the mounting of screw-in filters. With the exception of a few lenses (ultra-wide rectilinear lenses and fish-eye lenses), the objective element does not protrude beyond the rim. In the case of ultra-wide rectilinear lenses and fish-eye lenses, these protruding elements are protected by an in-built, non-removable lens hood.

In the unlikely event that a lens were to hit the ground face-first, it would be even more unlikely for the objective element to strike the ground or an object on the ground. In terms of probability, it is more likely that some part of the lens barrel will strike the ground, owing to the fact that there is far more surface area comprised of the barrel.

Now, in the rather unfortunate event that a lens did strike the ground or something on the ground at such an angle for the objective element to make direct, blunt-force contact, what would a thin sheet of glass to do protect it? Absolutely nothing.

The filter would smash, and the lens it was intended to protect would still bear direct impact. Furthermore, the shards of glass from a shattered filter would quite possibly scratch the fine coatings on the objective element. That’s not a situation I consider acceptable or sensible.

It is also to be remembered that the objective element of a lens is far thicker and far tougher than the glass in any filter. It would take significant force to crack an objective element.

As I mentioned above, I have dropped a lens. A few years ago I dropped a reasonably heavy lens from waist height onto bitumen. Now, the lens was wearing both its front and rear caps, but the damage the entire unit sustained was very low, and surprisingly so.

The part of the lens that actually hit the ground (after which it bounced and rolled away) was the side of the barrel, towards the front. There was a minor dent to the exterior of the barrel. The fact that the lens was wearing its caps made no difference, but I’d prefer caps on than caps off.

Naturally there was no UV filter on the lens. Had a filter been present, the shock force of the impact would likely have shattered the filter and left shards of glass in direct contact with my lens’s objective element.

One last issue to consider with the use of a filter in this scenario is that if the rim of the filter strikes the ground, it will almost certainly be deformed, and may be impossible to remove, as the impact can compress the metal of either the filter’s rim or the lens’s filter threads, thus permanently damaging them.

Impact can also take the form of less-brutal contact with glass, such as a tree branch or some other object still coming into contact with the lens, but not with the velocity of a drop or a flying stone thrown up by a passing vehicle. My belief, as I will explain further in this article, is that hoods offer more effective protection.

The Negative Effects of Filters

While the use of a UV filter can demonstrably be shown to be useless at best, or ineffective at worst for protection, there are also some negative consequences that arise as a result of using filters: image quality degradation.

Image quality degradation is more often the result of using cheap, non-coated UV filters, but I have seen first-hand image degradation when the filter was a Hoya HMC (Hoya Multi-Coated) filter, so even the better filters can still produce undesirable results.

The first negative side-effect is a loss of contrast and sharpness. There are examples on the Internet showing the same scene captured with and without a filter, and a visible loss of clarity is apparent in the image captured with the filter attached.

The other issue is flare and ghosting when shooting at point sources of light. This problem is likely to be encountered at night when shooting streetscapes and cityscapes, which often feature bright sources of light (eg, street lights or building lights) in the darkness.

This is what happens:

Light from the distance point source enters the lens. The light reflects off the lens and falls upon the inner surface of the UV filter, from which it in turn reflects back into the lens. The result is ghosting and flare. Utterly undesirable.

Multi-coated filters generally reduce this, but as I mentioned, I have seen it occur even with a multi-coated filter. In January of 2010 I took a friend from Queensland to shoot the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Sydney Opera House from Mrs Macquarie’s Chair, and while we were there, another photographer was also shooting night scenes. Her images weren’t turning out well, and when we removed the filter and she took the same photo again, the image quality visibly improved.

Based on that first-hand experience, I would not endorse the use of any UV filter when doing night photography in locations where there are point sources of light.

My Approach

I stated early in this article that I do not use UV filters. I believe they do not offer adequate protection, and have seen that they can degrade image quality. I do not consider either situation acceptable.

What I instead advocate and practice is the use of lens hoods when shooting, and lens caps when not shooting. These provide far more protection than any filter.

Lens hoods do three things:


reduce stray light hitting the lens at oblique angles and thus causing flare;
increase contrast as a result of keeping angular ambient light out; and
keep the objective element well away from hands and other foreign objects.

If a lens is dropped, the hood or barrel (as described earlier) will be more likely to take the hit. In most cases, lens hoods are made from plastic, so they will flex when they come into contact with a hard surface at significant velocity. This cushioning, much like a car’s shock absorber, absorbs the force of the impact far more effectively than the rigid surface of a filter rim or the lens barrel itself.

Lens caps are simply essential to protect the front and rear elements of a lens when it is not in use. Dust, moisture, fingerprints and blunt-force impact are all kept well out of harm’s way when caps are attached.

It would be remiss of me to neglect mentioning Hoya’s HD (high-density) line of filters. These have up to four times the breaking strength of a normal filter. Videos on YouTube show people deliberately slamming these into the corner of benches to demonstrate the strength of the glass.

While I have not seen these filters, they certainly have more merit than a regular UV filter for impact protection purposes, but I still believe that direct impact to the objective element of lens resulting from a drop would have velocity which exceeds the strength of the HD filter’s glass. I’d trust my hoods before I’d trust a filter.

So, hopefully this article provides some insight into what UV filters can and cannot do — mostly what they cannot do — and also explains my philosophy behind refusing to use these filters on my lenses.

In parting, the advice I would offer to anyone who would still use a filter is this:


buy the highest quality filters available;
remove the filters when shooting night scenes with point sources of light;
do not rely on these alone as protective devices; and
use lens hoods and lens caps.

[mikew09]

Nice article. Well the old comment "been there done that" applies for me. Only been with camera for about 18 months my filter experience was all bad. I have a old thread on AP when I asked for help as I struggled with sharpness with shots. As the thread went I tried different suggestions then someone posted a comment on filters. I removed my UV filters and there was a very noticeble omprovement. I should mention that though name brand filters they where the cheaper model. I have replaced my filter with a hood ever since. So to cut a long story short, my opion is you have hit the nail on the head. If this was a conversation we were having, my reply would have been - Exactly.

[Scotty72]

I'm with Xenedis on this.

I stopped using them about a year ago after a friend's lens was damaged almost certainly because of the use of a screw on UV.

It was mostly about it shattering, deforming the rim - getting stuck and the act removing the threat, damaged the casing around the lens.

I carry around (in my bag) a UV lens if a circumstance arises where I may feel I need one - but haven't come to that yet.

Scotty

[arthurking83]

(Xenedis) So do you use a filter on the 16-35/2.8 lens?... considering your prevalence for seascapes?

The Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-D is another lens that requires a filter to complete the sealing of the lens as it has an open front also.

My mistake was to not keep a spare filter on it at all times. I did have a system where the polariser was kept on it most of the time, but that was when I only had one to share around three lenses, so I almost invariably forgot to keep it on the 80-200/2.8 far too often.
I remember member SeeSee made comments on his 80-200 when he first acquired his(before I got mine), and he commented that his lens has 'too much' dust inside it from brand new. And so i checked mine and it was crystal clear(for the most part).. but upon later inspections it became obvious that dust was slowly building up inside the lens.
That's only an issue if you shoot (even partially) into any light source where the dust can reduce contrast that the lens is really capable of producing.

In a mostly seaside environment, I would have the UV(or polariser or screw on ND) on all the time on such a lens to stop seaspray from entering into the lens. Cleaning it off the front element is a non issue due to the ease with which it cleans off, but eventually having a hazy finish on any of the inner lens elements is something I'd rather not have to deal with... both getting cleaned and using the lens.

The only other benefit I can see for using filters as protection(from the elements) is as someone else pointed out once:
if you're at a seaside(or desert) shoot and the conditions are such that your front lens element is getting dirty regularly(which can happen quite quickly) and this is a time critical shoot, eg. paid models quickly fading light, etc.. even though it's easy to wipe a front lens clean it is much quicker to replace a dispensable filter and maintain a quicker workflow.
In such circumstances, if I had to choose between shooting through a clean UV filter or a lens with a dirty/hazy front element, I'd prefer the clean UV filter.

but in saying that.. I have no UV filters that fit any of my current lenses. I have one that doesn't fit any of my lenses tho! :p... don't know how to put it to best use yet, but I'm sure I'll find a use for it soon ;)

[RaoulIsidro]

I wonder what will happen to all those UV filters stacked on the display shelves in all those camera stores around the world if the majority would embrace this practice? :Doh::lol2::umm::action::eek::eek::eek:

[kiwi]

wow, ive never considered whether UV filters are good or bad, thanks for the useful analysis :cool:

[bobt]

An interesting article .... and I can see the logic behind it. I still use UV filters mainly because I feel that it is possible to scratch a lens when wiping it, or accidentally bumping it - and I think that scratching a replaceable UV filter is cheaper than any other options - especially when the lens is worth $1600 !!

It's the same reasoning that I use for covering my LCD with a transparent film - it saves small scratches, and I can easily replace films on the LCD or a UV filter at little cost.

[Mircula]

Really informative article, Thank you!

I don't use any filter on my lenses. i guess because my lenses are not worth 1000+ dollars and If I would use a filter I would use a good one which costs too much for me hehe.

Edit: How much do I have to spend for a proper lens protecting filter?


Ciao.

[sonofcoco]

This was a very interesting read. I've just bought a couple of clear filters for two of my lenses (the 100mm Macro and the 10-22mm). In the case of the macro lens I thought it might help protect it from and bumps and scratches if I'm in amongst bushes etc and for the 10-22mm it was to help keep it away from prying hands at school when I'm taking photos - it seems like the first thing the kids do is reach out and touch the lens.

I do have lens hoods for both, although the 10-22mm doesn't seem to offer much protection. I made sure I bought B+W filters, but I'll be removing them if there's any sign of an effect on images. Will most likely only use them in situations where I think its needed, rather than all the time.

[farmer_rob]

I don't use UV filters any more. However, I have scratched the front element of my 18-135mm lens (the kit lens) because I didn't put the lens cap on. (It's only a small scratch - doesn't show up in pictures - and the lens isn't my favourite anyway. ) I now make sure I use the lens caps, but will still not put a UV filter back on.

[nomis]

New to posting.. everyone seems to have varied opinions here.
If I'm honest, truly honest, everyone of my 5 lenses has one on it in my bag.
(not to say they don't come off - generally to replace with another filter)

But the reason is (like a lot of people perhaps and especially those new to photography) I don't consider any of my lenses as a keeper yet. Not really attached to any of them.
Focal length yes - actual lens no.

Everything i own will be sold eventually.
If I was buying second hand I would like to read "filter on since new" as long as it was removable.

I'm probably not as careful as i should be with stuff.
I'm not precious with my gear. I know I will always lose lens caps no matter how much i think it is in my pocket.
I treat most UV filters as lens caps when I'm in a hurry changing as i only have one body.
(rear cap on - chuck in bag or on ground if in a real hurry)
I have a UV on my macro because i never look where I am in and around the bushes, and the lens has the unfortunate job to clear the way for the flash when I'm not careful or I'm excited and chasing something around.

Agree with all of the above though..
I notice I use my 11 - 16 naked a bit more these days
Time and a place for everything for me.
I just need to learn to be more careful with gear - all the time.

[Xenedis]

(Xenedis) So do you use a filter on the 16-35/2.8 lens?... considering your prevalence for seascapes?

The only filters I use on my 16-35 are GNDs (almost always), NDs and very rarely a polariser.

I have a Lee creative filter system, and for most of my seascapes one or both of my GNDs are in front of the lens -- not for any protective purpose, but for balancing exposure.

[William]

Interesting read, Looks like the UV will be coming off my 10-20, I guess if they were needed they would come with one :th3: I use a Kit lens with no filter and peope always ask how I get the images so sharp, Maybe thats the answer :cool::)- Bill , Just remembered , Dont use one on the "Nifty Fifty" either , Sharp as !!

[flyfisher]

I do have UV filters for all my lens but in most cases I do remove them to replace them with others such as ND & Polarisers. I would like to think they offer some protection as I did drop my camera and 18-270 (only 3 days old) in a camera bag from my boat to the roadway clumsy sod that I am. I nearly cried as I heard the tinkle of glass as I picked the bag up but was overjoyed when I removed the shards from the UV filter and unscrewed it to find no damage to the lens or the camera. Maybe I was lucky on that day and the Gods blessed me but I still use them and am now very wary where I put my gear down.

[joele]

I use a high quality UV or protective filter when doing seascapes (I cleaned a huge amount of salt of my filter after my last trip) but in normal climates I try not to use them..

[nomis]

thought I posted this, but at work, hiding the screen so I musn't have pressed reply..
Two things for people thinking about removing a UV filter if used for protection from personal experience..

1 - I have used scratched filters (a bad macro experience ) and scratched lenses.
To get either of these to show up in an image I needed a huge DOF to get this to show.
And at this setting I was also showing sensor dust as well. (a side problem to Macro DOF).
Regular aperture and it wont / wouldn't show..

2 - If your wondering how strong the protective coating on glass is we have used / abused 14 G9's at work since they were released.They are used in all conditions including heavy rain / dust / whatever and they will sit on a monopod for 10 minutes in a downpour. They are always just cleaned / wiped with a dry hankie. No blower first, no fluid, generally abused. In the last couple of years not one has any visible lens damage at all.
The qualities of these lenses and their coatings is nowhere near as good as any expensive lens.

That being said I have Hitech GND's and ND's and sensor dust will show before I can get imperfections showing on the image when looking for big DOF in a 'scape photo . So i really don't have a problem using a high quality clear UV on my lenses.

Like I said I'm not very precious with my gear. (twice i have had to clean out my tripod mount with a compressor to get the dirt out of it) Anyways I have gotten off the track.
Short answer for me is lenses have really good protective coatings...
Sensor dust shows at about the same time as a lens mark will...
And i really should take better care of my wide angle when it's naked.. (big DOF)

[TOM]

i've got a 3mm gauge on the front element of my 35mm lens. Just got a quote to fix it...$1 200. Here is an extract from the email I received:

"sorry fort he delay in answering, but the mail passed several colleagues here in our house. First of all => Scratches on the front-element do not have any influence on optical performance. The replacement here in our workshop as a ballpark figure

labor charges approx 280 Euro

spare-part(s) approx 220 Euro

plus 40 euro shipping charges."

I still refuse to use the UV filter, unless I want to cut down on UV. My fault for leaving my camera on my desk for my 3 year old to play with.

[Kym]

No Filter, Cap and hood now-a-days.
Back in my film days I used UV filters

[TOM]

yep, can't beat a lens cap and hood for protection, and they're usually free when you buy the lens.

[rwg717]

I must say, an extremely well written article which presents the arguments in perfect contrast, food for though me thinks!:confused013
Richard

[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.

:th3:

[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:eek:.

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_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! :D)

.. 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.

[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. :D

[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. :D

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 :D ) 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 :D ) 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! :D)

.. 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.

[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:" :umm:

[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 ' :th3: 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 :beer_mug: 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:
http://www.everlookphotography.com/Iceland/Iceland-2010/Volcanic-Ash-4895/1197203328_9WR2c-S.jpg

[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! :p

But a recent story on a website:

HERE (http://www.petapixel.com/2012/02/14/beware-light-painting-with-steel-wool-can-be-hazardous-to-your-lens-health/#more-46465)

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! :D

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 :D.

[rodw]

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

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.

[Steve Axford]

I had a volcano spit acid onto my 14mm lens. The acid stripped the coating off. Still, a filter wouldn't have helped because there aren't filters for that lens. Oh well, I guess the moral is - don't annoy volcanoes and make them spit.

[rodw]

I had a volcano spit acid onto my 14mm lens. The acid stripped the coating off. Still, a filter wouldn't have helped because there aren't filters for that lens. Oh well, I guess the moral is - don't annoy volcanoes and make them spit.

If it stripped the lens coating off, what did it do to the people coating?:eek::eek::eek:

I think there is now a special filter holder for it, Not from Nikon though but it would let you join the "naughty" filter club :D

[Steve Axford]

Oddly enough, sulphuric acid doesn't hurt skin very much. Eyes and cuts it can sting a bit, but lens coatings don't hold up very well. Nitric acid, on the other hand, tends to form nitro-skin, which could be explosive in the same way that nitrocellulose is. But they did use that for film, didn't they. Though it did produce a few fires and the odd explosion when they used it for billiard balls.

[extraball]

this week the UV filter comes off the Tamron lens, if the pics look better.......it will stay off.

[extraball]

Didn't need a week to confirm, that my UV filter is having a negative impact on my photos. Been using my Tamron SP70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD with a UV filter from day dot, thinking I was doing a good thing. Last few days shooting, without that "UV frisbee", and my shots are coming straight out of the camera with very good definition, and hardly needing any sharpening. With the UV I was pushing the sharpening sliders quite alot. Below examples are shots straight out the camera/no processing at all (canon 1100D). I can now crop the images heavily, and still keep good definition without sharpening. Big thanks to this thread, and the OP!

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e260/Gwind/good%20pics/muckin018.jpg

cropped (wish this guy had of moved into a better spot, he spooked even at a distance, and flew-away)

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e260/Gwind/good%20pics/muckin018ede.jpg