How important are UV filters

Fla5h

Fla5h

Messages
832
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-56 IS MkII Lens

How important are UV filters and is it best to stay away from cheap ones around a £5 on the bay or go for something like this Hoya-Pro-1-Digital-Screw at around £20
 
If you think you need to protect the lens from sand or something then use one when you're in that environment. Otherwise i wouldn't bother.
Digital is not in the slightest bit affected by UV so all they do is offer some protection for the lens against scratches. They degrade image quality, substantially with some lens/filter combinations. The coatings and material used on lots of lenses is much less likely to scratch than you'd think too.
 
4 replies in 13 minutes....blimey you guys are quick off the mark

Thanks for the good advice:thumbs:
 
As a previous poster mentioned I only use one these days if conditions demand.

A few years ago I bought a good quality Hoya Pro-Digital UV to go on front of my new Canon 17-55 and to begin with wasn't blown away with my results considering what I knew this lens was capable of. It went back to Canon and they said it was fine. I then started shooting without a UV and suddenly found the same:)
 
.. less important than understanding how the "search" feature works.. .. ;)

(because UV filters are a divisive subject with no right answer and the subject of many, many heated threads already)
 
I spent around £200 on half a dozen good quality UV filters and completely wasted my money. The first time I ever did any shooting without them was a revelation. The IQ was so affected I was on the verge of returning my 7D as faulty, but decided to try everything to make sure. Imagine my relief when I'd took all the filters off and tested every lens and found the same to be true for all of them. I always shoot with the lens hood on now and no filter, unless it's wet or very dusty, when I put up with the image degradation for safety's sake.
 
I have a few but don't bother with them. I might put one on if I was shooting in harsh conditions such as crashing waves / salty sea spray.

That said - when it comes to buying a used lens then (providing people are telling the truth) there's some comfort to be had when somebody says they've had a UV filter fitted since new.;)
 
Around 90% of my shots are taken using a uv filter. I have made a good living as a photographer - it's my sole source of income - for many years. Do you think I'd use a uv if there really was any notable degradation? Do you think my clients would accept inferior images, and keep coming back for more, year after year?

A good uv used properly and with understanding (just like any other piece of photographic equipment), will make no difference worthy of note to your images. But it will help to protect your lens.
 
Fla5h said:
How important are UV filters and is it best to stay away from cheap ones around a £5 on the bay or go for something like this Hoya-Pro-1-Digital-Screw at around £20
Click to expand...

:thinking: Anychance that you could you make your next post about oem & non-oem batteries & battery grips - as theres not been one for a wee while :p :coat: :exit:
 
Don't bother.

Why pay money to degrade all your images? Makes no sense!

My longer answers can be found via the search button :)
 
All our lenses use UV filters (we have a cabinet full of f/2.8G Nikon lenses of varying focal lengths), and our images are published by International Press on a fairly regular basis. On a fair few occasions I've taken the UV filter off (usually in inclement weather when the filter is covered in rain and I don't have a cloth), and the images haven't suddenly become crystal clear.

Truth is, they don't really affect image quality at all. Maybe if you've spent 50p on ebay they might do. However, I know I'd prefer to drop and smash my £20 filter, instead of my £2000 lens.
 
Circuit Hero said:
All our lenses use UV filters (we have a cabinet full of f/2.8G Nikon lenses of varying focal lengths), and our images are published by International Press on a fairly regular basis. On a fair few occasions I've taken the UV filter off (usually in inclement weather when the filter is covered in rain and I don't have a cloth), and the images haven't suddenly become crystal clear.

Truth is, they don't really affect image quality at all. Maybe if you've spent 50p on ebay they might do. However, I know I'd prefer to drop and smash my £20 filter, instead of my £2000 lens.
Click to expand...

If you dropped a heavy f/2.8 lens, do you really think a flimsy filter will save it??!

As I said in a previous thread about this subject (re protection) it's like putting an egg on your front bumper, then inching slowly into a wall at 1 mph, cracking the egg and obviously not damaging the bumper, then swearing blind the egg saved the car as the bumper was undamaged. See how the car fares at 40 mph!

And let's not forget, published images in magazines etc are significantly reduced in size and resolution from the original image so as far as publishers go, ultimate iq is often neither here nor there, rather subject and composition (which is a good thing!).
 
Last edited:
oil, salt, pollen, paint, vomit, beer, urine, grease, finger prints, egg, excrement, mayonnaise, petrol, diesel, fish slime, sand, mud... enough examples?

I've been in situations where all of these above have either threatened my lens or actually come into contact with it.

Would you rather clean these off a filter, by running it under a tap, or have to rub them off the front element of your £2,000 lens?

And if you were buying a used lens, would you rather buy one that had been protected, or had been exposed to god knows what? Or cleaned with god knows what abrasives? Or was still contaminated with god knows what?

Given that any reduction in IQ is indeterminable in most circumstances, I'd say that the filter is worth its cost.
 
jon ryan said:
oil, salt, pollen, paint, vomit, beer, urine, grease, finger prints, egg, excrement, mayonnaise, petrol, diesel, fish slime, sand, mud... enough examples?

I've been in situations where all of these above have either threatened my lens or actually come into contact with it.

Would you rather clean these off a filter, by running it under a tap, or have to rub them off the front element of your £2,000 lens?

And if you were buying a used lens, would you rather buy one that had been protected, or had been exposed to god knows what? Or cleaned with god knows what abrasives? Or was still contaminated with god knows what?

Given that any reduction in IQ is indeterminable in most circumstances, I'd say that the filter is worth its cost.
Click to expand...

Been doing this for years and never had a problem with any of the above. Never damaged a lens by wiping it.

UV filters are just a placebo. In IMHO of course.

Got to wonder what you're shooting if you've had wee, poo and vomit on the end of your lens though?
 
Last edited:
Have a biscuit..

:jaffa:

.. now, play nice..
 
I've used cheapo to mid priced ones. I use them for lens protection as I'd rather scrape grime, salt spray and sand off a cheap filter than an expensive lens.

The only problem that I've ever seen a filter cause is when the shot includes a bright light source in low light but other than that one specific instance I've never seen another optical issue, and you can always take the filter off.
 
don't really see much different using one or not, abit of personal preference really. Only time where i take them off is indoor with some kind of strong light shine on the filter where it will cause some green dots on the image. So i take them off indoor usually.
 
I dropped a 35mm film camera from waist height onto a concrete pathway while going in a doorway. The 67mm UV filter was shattered and the alloy ring was squashed flat. The zoom lens was undamaged. The lens (an electric auto focus 55- 200 zoom) still works as new.

The whole outfit fell vertical fortunately and the UV filter was totalled. I had to cut across it with a fine saw blade and twist it out of its thread. It's still hanging on a nail in the workshop. I think being a soft alloy the filter acted like a crumple zone on a car.

Now I am reluctant to have a camera without a filter fitted. Not UV though. Skylight YES.
 
odd jim said:
Been doing this for years and never had a problem with any of the above. Never damaged a lens by wiping it.

UV filters are just a placebo. In IMHO of course.

Got to wonder what you're shooting if you've had wee, poo and vomit on the end of your lens though?
Click to expand...

Glastonbury... :cool:
 
Last edited:
from the end of post 9.... The truth is that a good filter will, most of the time, have no discernible negative effects. But it's also true that a good filter will adversely effect IQ sometimes....
 
Trig's said:
:thinking: Anychance that you could you make your next post about oem & non-oem batteries & battery grips - as theres not been one for a wee while :p :coat: :exit:
Click to expand...

Why post here if you just want to be negative, I'm new to photography and this forum, most people here so far are happy to help, if you don't want to help then don't read the post or is this how you reach 3000 odd posts just posting negative comments?

So what if it's discussed before, old members may not off had a view on it before but wish to do so now like new members....each to their own

As for the batteries, I got 2 when I purchased the camara so no need for me post about them:)

Talk Basics If you are new to photography, or just have a question you think is basic, then fire away! Absolutely no question is too silly or basic for us in here.

Anyway I'm off the watch the phantom menace.....why do kids always want to keep watching the same film over and over!!
 
Last edited:
Fla5h said:
Why post here if you just want to be negative, I'm new to photography and this forum, most people here so far are happy to help, if you don't want to help then don't read the post or is this how you reach 3000 odd posts just posting negative comments?
So what if it's discussed before, old members may not off had a view on it before but wish to do so now like new members....each to their own..
Click to expand...


It was said in a joking way - but obviously you didn't read it as that...

All I can say is that if you done a search regarding the filters as well as my 3000 odd posts then you would see for yourself if they were negative or not...

Like Jim also mentions use of the search function then you could've seen his more detailed responses to them - but then again are his 3000 negative posts as well :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Steve, stop being arsey please. It was a valid question, yes it has been covered before (hasn't everything?) but maybe you could link to the previous threads instead of saying "use the search". As it is the thread has produced a good debate and all is well....now please a little less attitude :)
 
I have had two lens saved by having a uv/skylight filter on them over the years, both would have cost far more to repar or replace than the filter did.
As for quality loss I'm not convinced, I had the chance to see filters being optically tested a few years back, even the cheap square resin ones performed well.
 
Trig's said:
It was said in a joking way - but obviously you didn't read it as that...

All I can say is that if you done a search regarding the filters as well as my 3000 odd posts then you would see for yourself if they were negative or not...

Like Jim also mentions use of the search function then you could've seen his more detailed responses to them - but then again are his 3000 negative posts as well :shrug:
Click to expand...

Apologies didn't mean any offence, don't want to get off on the wrong foot.....give me time then I'll understand your humor:)

I have been trawling through loads of posts over the last few days here, some really excellent posts.

Cheers

Tony

:beer:
 
I was certainly glad I made the decision to stick a filter on my 70-200 2.8 yesterday before going to the sunseeker rally yesterday, and for good reason as a MK II escort decided to chuck a stone up the hood out of my lens which took a small chunk out of the filter..phew.... lens is alright though and being smacked in the gob by the flying stones didn't bother me to much..

I dont always use filters, but thought lots of people stick allsorts infront of their nice expensive lenses when doing landscapes, so sticking a bit of clear glass infront of mine was not going to spoil my day.
 
Steve-B said:
I was certainly glad I made the decision to stick a filter on my 70-200 2.8 yesterday before going to the sunseeker rally yesterday, and for good reason as a MK II escort decided to chuck a stone up the hood out of my lens which took a small chunk out of the filter..phew.... lens is alright though and being smacked in the gob by the flying stones didn't bother me to much..

I dont always use filters, but thought lots of people stick allsorts infront of their nice expensive lenses when doing landscapes, so sticking a bit of clear glass infront of mine was not going to spoil my day.
Click to expand...

Have to question the need for pointing the lens in the direction of flying stones (I.e. the rear of the car). The stones coming at that speed would quite easily puncture the uv and hit the front element anyway. The oh had a quarter of a brick hit her last year, a uv wouldn't help there ;)
 
odd jim said:
If you dropped a heavy f/2.8 lens, do you really think a flimsy filter will save it??!

As I said in a previous thread about this subject (re protection) it's like putting an egg on your front bumper, then inching slowly into a wall at 1 mph, cracking the egg and obviously not damaging the bumper, then swearing blind the egg saved the car as the bumper was undamaged. See how the car fares at 40 mph!
Click to expand...

Yes it would, and has on several occasions. Our lenses aren't kept in bubble-wrap in a studio, they're tools used everywhere from the back-seat of fast jet aircraft to the killing fields of Afghanistan. We've damaged a fair few lenses when they've dropped onto their side, and obviously a UV filter hasn't done a thing. But I can think of three lenses (two 70-200mm f/2.8G and a 24-70 f/2.8G lens) that we've managed to smash the UV filters on, and not damage anything else in the last year.

And let's not forget, published images in magazines etc are significantly reduced in size and resolution from the original image so as far as publishers go, ultimate iq is often neither here nor there, rather subject and composition (which is a good thing!).
Click to expand...

All images we send out to the press are full resolution (usually 12" longest side at 300dpi). :thumbs:
 
Graham, I note that the shot you are using as an avatar seems to show that the photographer was shooting through the canopy

This will have quite a deleterious effect on IQ. I suggest you open the window for all shooting from the cockpit. (You may want to put any maps, coke cups, sweet wrappers and so forth in the glove locker first as this may cause a bit of a breeze). Or you could try securing the camera to your leading edge with a Gorilla Pod, or wrap the strap around one of those pointy things under the wing, and use a remote to trigger it (check the weather forecast first - you don't want your camera to get wet!).

Hope you see this in the helpful manner in which it is intended.
 
neil_g said:
Have to question the need for pointing the lens in the direction of flying stones (I.e. the rear of the car). The stones coming at that speed would quite easily puncture the uv and hit the front element anyway. The oh had a quarter of a brick hit her last year, a uv wouldn't help there ;)
Click to expand...

panning as the cars were coming sideways round and out of a corner, and trying to stick the front of the camera down to the ground asap....but we cant all be perfect ;)
 
MWHCVT said:
Don't use it, they degrade the clarity of your images for no real reason :shrug:

Welcome to TP :wave:

Matt
MWHCVT
Click to expand...

thanks Matthew ...i am chucking my cheapy away now...
:thumbs:
 
neil_g said:
Have to question the need for pointing the lens in the direction of flying stones (I.e. the rear of the car). The stones coming at that speed would quite easily puncture the uv and hit the front element anyway. The oh had a quarter of a brick hit her last year, a uv wouldn't help there ;)
Click to expand...

....better to have a chip in the filter than the front element of your lens I would have thought.

......and did you get the shot, Steve?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top