How important are UV filters

[neil_g]

....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?

My point was to get a flying stone down the hood you'd need to be aiming the lens in a way that a direct hit with the speed those things come at you would probably puncture the filter anyway. With or without a filter that is unwise. Common sense with where you point the glass is better than something that will degrade quality in some way or another.

And yes I've done plenty of rally's with no filter and not had any damaged glass

 

[Steve-B]

Neil, to be honest stones were flicking in all directions, and when I had finished my panning the lens got covered with my hand and pointed towards the ground..it could have been a stone that rebounded off a tree or anything.. I have seen lots of images on these very forums with stones getting flicked up in all directions, and if people were not pointing their camera's in the general dierction we would never get to see these images...As I said I for one was greatful it was just a chip in the filter rather than a chip in the lens...

and I dont doubt that you have done lots of rallys with out a filter and never damaged a lens, and I sincerely hope it never happens to you...but who knows next time could be the time..

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

LOL - I love threads like this.
You can't beat the classics.
Yesterday it was f2.8 v f4, 24mm not wide enough on crop sensors and IS or not to IS.

I reckon there's a real case for having a TP resource that points to the best answers which would save having to make sense of the huge set of search results.

My 2p - rallying is one of the few justifiable uses of a UV filter.
If in doubt - don't.

 

[neil_g]

Neil, to be honest stones were flicking in all directions, and when I had finished my panning the lens got covered with my hand and pointed towards the ground..it could have been a stone that rebounded off a tree or anything.. I have seen lots of images on these very forums with stones getting flicked up in all directions, and if people were not pointing their camera's in the general dierction we would never get to see these images...As I said I for one was greatful it was just a chip in the filter rather than a chip in the lens...

and I dont doubt that you have done lots of rallys with out a filter and never damaged a lens, and I sincerely hope it never happens to you...but who knows next time could be the time..

Doubt it, apparently I'm perfect.. :shrug:



Edit - before the humourless of the forum come along that is a joke

 

[Rajkay]

I use them as I gather that some lenses aren't fully weather sealed until you use a filter such as the 70-200? In the case of my 17-55 efs I remember reading somewhere that a lot less dust would get sucked in which can be a issue with that lens.

 

[Circuit Hero]

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.

You're right, it was a tricky self-portrait to master. Originally I had planned on just turning the camera to face me in a 'myspace/emo' style shot, but I didn't think this would yield the right result.

I took a year out at work to develop my own clone, and then train both it and a seagull to fly together. Eventually, the effort paid off and they took that shot. Unfortunately, as you correctly pointed out, the image couldn't be used anywhere as a UV filter on the lens made the shot of such poor quality that people began to think I had actually sketched the whole thing in biro. I have since thrown my UV filter away and it's been a rollercoaster of optical wonder ever since.

 

[HoppyUK]

You're right, it was a tricky self-portrait to master. Originally I had planned on just turning the camera to face me in a 'myspace/emo' style shot, but I didn't think this would yield the right result.

I took a year out at work to develop my own clone, and then train both it and a seagull to fly together. Eventually, the effort paid off and they took that shot. Unfortunately, as you correctly pointed out, the image couldn't be used anywhere as a UV filter on the lens made the shot of such poor quality that people began to think I had actually sketched the whole thing in biro. I have since thrown my UV filter away and it's been a rollercoaster of optical wonder ever since.

Graham, in all seriousness, if a filter was used for that shot in your avatar, I would be amazed if there is not some noticeable image degradation. Of course it doesn't render the image useless, far from it, but there will be a noticeable loss of quality.

Look for flare and ghosting (double image reflected off the sensor and back again from the rear of the filter). It's almost unavoidable when you have bright lights in the frame, against darker backgrounds - ie your avatar. Street lights, car headlights, sunsets, that kind of thing especially.

You can't see it through the viewfinder, only in actual images (or in live view) and particularly when the light/s are on-axis and at lower f/numbers. To deliberately provoke it, frame up some car headlights in live view and watch the ghosts move around as you move the camera.

The other thing is a loss of sharpness and often strange bokeh effects with long lenses, as they magnify any optical flaws.

It would be foolish not to use a protection filter if there is a real danger of physical damage, but if you tend to leave one on all the time, you should do your own tests in situations where it might make a difference.

 

[Circuit Hero]

Richard - Just to confirm, that shot (and all the others from the same job) were taken with a UV filter fitted. It's difficult to say that the shots would have been better without them without doing a direct comparison.

However, that particular job was printed in various magazines and national newspapers, a brochure for the Squadron I flew with, and over a dozen 30"x40" prints which adorn the hangar walls.

I've shot in most situations/environments you could think of, and have never suffered any discernable effects I could pin on a UV filter. I'd be interested to see some evidence of a UV filter affecting image quality, as it doesn't affect ours (just shown this to a friend at work who has been doing this job for the last 9 years who also agrees that a good UV filter doesn't affect image quality). We use Hoya filters if that helps clarify, although they're not particularly expensive.

Interesting to see both sides of the debate, but I think we need some concrete proof to really take it any further (from both sides).

 

[Alastair]

 

[odd jim]

Richard - Just to confirm, that shot (and all the others from the same job) were taken with a UV filter fitted. It's difficult to say that the shots would have been better without them without doing a direct comparison.

However, that particular job was printed in various magazines and national newspapers, a brochure for the Squadron I flew with, and over a dozen 30"x40" prints which adorn the hangar walls.

I've shot in most situations/environments you could think of, and have never suffered any discernable effects I could pin on a UV filter. I'd be interested to see some evidence of a UV filter affecting image quality, as it doesn't affect ours (just shown this to a friend at work who has been doing this job for the last 9 years who also agrees that a good UV filter doesn't affect image quality). We use Hoya filters if that helps clarify, although they're not particularly expensive.

Interesting to see both sides of the debate, but I think we need some concrete proof to really take it any further (from both sides).

The differences with and without have been well documented on here before, showing quite a difference between with and without the UV filter.

 

[HoppyUK]

Richard - Just to confirm, that shot (and all the others from the same job) were taken with a UV filter fitted. It's difficult to say that the shots would have been better without them without doing a direct comparison.

However, that particular job was printed in various magazines and national newspapers, a brochure for the Squadron I flew with, and over a dozen 30"x40" prints which adorn the hangar walls.

I've shot in most situations/environments you could think of, and have never suffered any discernable effects I could pin on a UV filter. I'd be interested to see some evidence of a UV filter affecting image quality, as it doesn't affect ours (just shown this to a friend at work who has been doing this job for the last 9 years who also agrees that a good UV filter doesn't affect image quality). We use Hoya filters if that helps clarify, although they're not particularly expensive.

Interesting to see both sides of the debate, but I think we need some concrete proof to really take it any further (from both sides).

You need to do your own comparisons, but there are plenty on here if you search. I've highlighted the areas that are prone to degradation, but in everyday picture taking you may not notice anything, or it may not be significant. Then you can make a judgement on the risk. I have a UV filter, but only use it when necessary, sea spray being an example.

Here's one comparison. Try that with a cheap resin grad Note the ghost reflection, fairly obviously, the enlarged flare around the lamp and also D-max is slightly reduced all over in the with-filter shot. And that's with one of the best UVs you can get.


Canon 17-40L, f/4, no filter

With Hoya Pro-1 UV filter

 

[Circuit Hero]

I've just taken some images in our studio, using lights in various places (both naked and diffused), and natural light from the window, using the following:

Nikon D3S
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro with and without Tiffen 62mm UV
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G with and without Hoya 77mm UV
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G with and without the above

On our calibrated screens, both pre and post processing, there is no difference in image quality whatsoever. When printed, viewed under a light bench, there is no difference either.

You'll have to bear with me for the images as I'm typing this on my phone (our internet filter blocks this site, and I won't have personal internet until the weekend). I'm happy to burn the images to CD and post them on here at the weekend if people really want to see them, though.

 

[Fla5h]

I've just taken some images in our studio, using lights in various places (both naked and diffused), and natural light from the window, using the following:

Nikon D3S
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro with and without Tiffen 62mm UV
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G with and without Hoya 77mm UV
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G with and without the above

On our calibrated screens, both pre and post processing, there is no difference in image quality whatsoever. When printed, viewed under a light bench, there is no difference either.

You'll have to bear with me for the images as I'm typing this on my phone (our internet filter blocks this site, and I won't have personal internet until the weekend). I'm happy to burn the images to CD and post them on here at the weekend if people really want to see them, though.

Yes I would like to see the images when you get time to post.

TIA

 

[jon ryan]

You need to do your own comparisons, but there are plenty on here if you search. I've highlighted the areas that are prone to degradation, but in everyday picture taking you may not notice anything, or it may not be significant. Then you can make a judgement on the risk. I have a UV filter, but only use it when necessary, sea spray being an example.

Here's one comparison. Try that with a cheap resin grad Note the ghost reflection, fairly obviously, the enlarged flare around the lamp and also D-max is slightly reduced all over in the with-filter shot. And that's with one of the best UVs you can get.


Canon 17-40L, f/4, no filter

With Hoya Pro-1 UV filter

Yes, it's quite easy to set up a scenario specifically designed to show something I think we are all aware of: that under certain lighting conditions, a filter can exacerbate flair. However, this is an artificial situation. How often are you likely to encounter exactly those shooting conditions?

Worth noting that the `with filter` image seems to be brighter: see the lower left corner of the mirror surround. From this, it appears that fitting a filter of this type boosts highlights, which seems improbable.

How was this trial designed? What was your primary question? How many shots were taken and under what alternative lighting/camera/filter set-ups? Publishing a couple of shots that look like someone accidentally pressed the shutter don't really do much to carry an argument that uv filters are worthless and detrimental to all photography in real-life shooting situations.

 

[Brian Sayle]

I only used them in disused buildings or dusty underground places to keep dust...etc of the incident. Had a incident few years back when i didn't see a nail sticking out of a door, went right into the filter, would of been a nasty end to my 17 40 otherwise, ok maybe i should of looked where i was going better but the filter did what i wanted it to do

 

[HoppyUK]

Yes, it's quite easy to set up a scenario specifically designed to show something I think we are all aware of: that under certain lighting conditions, a filter can exacerbate flair. However, this is an artificial situation. How often are you likely to encounter exactly those shooting conditions?

Worth noting that the `with filter` image seems to be brighter: see the lower left corner of the mirror surround. From this, it appears that fitting a filter of this type boosts highlights, which seems improbable.

How was this trial designed? What was your primary question? How many shots were taken and under what alternative lighting/camera/filter set-ups? Publishing a couple of shots that look like someone accidentally pressed the shutter don't really do much to carry an argument that uv filters are worthless and detrimental to all photography in real-life shooting situations.

Taking pictures that show filters don't make any difference is easy, because most of the time they don't. You have to know what to look for, what provokes it, and do comparison tests to demonstate it.

In those two pictures above, sure they were just quick snaps taken sitting at the PC, but what you see is no accident. Note that the light is just off axis, is at f/4, and the camera angled so that the ghost image fell on a dark area of the image. You could do the same test, camera at a different angle so that the ghost either bounced out of the frame or fell on a light area where it might pass unnoticed. Or use a higher f/number when the closed diapragm cuts off the return path of the ghost.

And yes, the bottom pic is a little brighter all over, especially the darker areas. Flare does that

Try a street scene at night, car headlights etc. Or shoot into bright light with a dark foreground, eg sunset. I tend not to use protection filters unless necessary, but I am not saying your pictures will be rubbish if you do. Just pointing out that filters are not without their drawbacks and in some situations they can be, and will be, very noticeable.

 

[Deadlock]

I prefer to use a hood than a filter. Mine is covered in scratches which is proof enough to me that its doing a good job at protecting the lens.

In some situations there may be a lot of liquids, sand, dust or other contaminants which have left me wiping the lens every few minutes despite the hood. Some lenses specify they need a filter to water seal them. I don't want to be wiping the lens so often and running the risk of being in a rush and missing some grit on the lens or caught up in the cloth from a previous wipe.
For those reasons I feel much more comfortable continually wiping down just a £100 b&w filter.

I've never had a shot ruined by a filter and I've never missed a shot from the added protection.

I like my safety net. Works for me.

 

[jon ryan]

.3 sec, f/5.6, 19mm (17-40L , Canon 5D), 50 ISO (yes, yes, I know... ), plus hood and (pause for fanfair) Hoya pro-1 77mm filter!!! (Pause for gasps of amazement/alarm, shouts of "you're not a real photographer!" from the cheap seats, scratching sound of letters being written to the Daily Mail, &c &c)

Main light just off axis, plenty of other light sources...no flare. I've had flare, I guess we've all had flare, and very irritating it is too. But it really is pretty rare. More rare than raindrops on the front element spoiling a shot, for instance. And I still say that the protection afforded by a good filter more than offsets the chances of an imperfection from time to time. And if you move three inches to the left, the flare may well vanish anyway. Which is why I tell my students to take the shot...and then take it again, a bit differently.

Right, your go.

 

[HoppyUK]

.3 sec, f/5.6, 19mm (17-40L , Canon 5D), 50 ISO (yes, yes, I know... ), plus hood and (pause for fanfair) Hoya pro-1 77mm filter!!! (Pause for gasps of amazement/alarm, shouts of "you're not a real photographer!" from the cheap seats, scratching sound of letters being written to the Daily Mail, &c &c)

<snip>

Main light just off axis, plenty of other light sources...no flare. I've had flare, I guess we've all had flare, and very irritating it is too. But it really is pretty rare. More rare than raindrops on the front element spoiling a shot, for instance. And I still say that the protection afforded by a good filter more than offsets the chances of an imperfection from time to time. And if you move three inches to the left, the flare may well vanish anyway. Which is why I tell my students to take the shot...and then take it again, a bit differently.

Right, your go.

It's not a competition But how can you tell anything without a side by side comparison? Preferably uncropped.

And yes, a hood is always a very good idea. Mostly the only time I clean a lens is to remove my own finger marks. Either way, it's much better not to have to clean anything, filter or not.

 

[Circuit Hero]

Taking pictures that show filters don't make any difference is easy, because most of the time they don't. You have to know what to look for, what provokes it, and do comparison tests to demonstate it.

In those two pictures above, sure they were just quick snaps taken sitting at the PC, but what you see is no accident. Note that the light is just off axis, is at f/4, and the camera angled so that the ghost image fell on a dark area of the image. You could do the same test, camera at a different angle so that the ghost either bounced out of the frame or fell on a light area where it might pass unnoticed. Or use a higher f/number when the closed diapragm cuts off the return path of the ghost.

The pictures I took in the studio show flare, and that a UV filter doesn't particularly enhance it. I could show you a dozen images from my 12-24mm (which has no filter) which show a huge amount of flare. The fact is, if you have flare in your shot and don't want it, taking off the UV filter won't make any difference to whether the image is useable or not. It takes a pretty precise angle to get lens flare from a light source, so I'd have to assume you'd need to be trying to show flare to capture it, it's obvious enough that you wouldn't really do it by accident.

 

[London Headshots]

The cheaper they're are, the crapper they are. Stay aay, unless you have coin to spend

 

[jon ryan]

Originally Posted by jon ryan
.3 sec, f/5.6, 19mm (17-40L , Canon 5D), 50 ISO (yes, yes, I know... ), plus hood and (pause for fanfair) Hoya pro-1 77mm filter!!! (Pause for gasps of amazement/alarm, shouts of "you're not a real photographer!" from the cheap seats, scratching sound of letters being written to the Daily Mail, &c &c)

<snip>

Main light just off axis, plenty of other light sources...no flare. I've had flare, I guess we've all had flare, and very irritating it is too. But it really is pretty rare. More rare than raindrops on the front element spoiling a shot, for instance. And I still say that the protection afforded by a good filter more than offsets the chances of an imperfection from time to time. And if you move three inches to the left, the flare may well vanish anyway. Which is why I tell my students to take the shot...and then take it again, a bit differently.

Right, your go.

It's not a competition But how can you tell anything without a side by side comparison? Preferably uncropped.

And yes, a hood is always a very good idea. Mostly the only time I clean a lens is to remove my own finger marks. Either way, it's much better not to have to clean anything, filter or not.

What shall I compare it to? This was from a couple of years ago, so I don't remember the circs. I took a number of shots (all slightly different - I practice what I preach ) and kept the one I liked best. Some of the ones that failed to make the cut may well have had flare; that may be why they were dumped. :shrug: How would an uncropped shot help? The point is surely that there was no flare where it matters )

As for cleaning, this is the main reason I use a filter. Gunk of all kinds gets on lenses, no matter how careful we are. I can run a filter under the tap, or wipe it on my sleeve in an emergency without too much concern. This is not such a good idea with a 17-40. Even less so with an expensive lens.

(Forgot to ask: what mechanism causes that lightening effect on your 'with filter' shot above? It seems pretty uniform and flare...isn't)

 

[HoppyUK]

What shall I compare it to? This was from a couple of years ago, so I don't remember the circs. I took a number of shots (all slightly different - I practice what I preach ) and kept the one I liked best. Some of the ones that failed to make the cut may well have had flare; that may be why they were dumped. :shrug: How would an uncropped shot help? The point is surely that there was no flare where it matters )

As for cleaning, this is the main reason I use a filter. Gunk of all kinds gets on lenses, no matter how careful we are. I can run a filter under the tap, or wipe it on my sleeve in an emergency without too much concern. This is not such a good idea with a 17-40. Even less so with an expensive lens.

(Forgot to ask: what mechanism causes that lightening effect on your 'with filter' shot above? It seems pretty uniform and flare...isn't)

It's veiling glare - non-localised flare that reduces contrast over the whole image. Basically reflected light that bounces around inside the lens and puts a light fog on everything. Some lenses are more prone than others, eg those made for film that are not expecting to have any light bouncing back through them off a shiny sensor, or are not well baffled internally.

Unwanted filter effects come in all kinds, all variable, some controllable, some not, some obvious, others less so. Some filters are better than others, eg quality multi-coated vs resin grad, cheap vs expensive etc, but no filter is immune.

The question is not whether filters used purely for protection reduce image quality, because they do - sometimes a lot. You just have to weight up the pros and cons. I don't care for protection filters at all, becuase 99% of the time I just don't need one. For other folks, that situation is reversed. But I've got a protection filter, fits all my lenses. Last time I used it was in sea spray which is horrible stuff and I was very grateful to have one. A lens hood is a 100% rule though.

 

[jon ryan]

It's veiling glare - non-localised flare that reduces contrast over the whole image. Basically reflected light that bounces around inside the lens and puts a light fog on everything. Some lenses are more prone than others, eg those made for film that are not expecting to have any light bouncing back through them off a shiny sensor, or are not well baffled internally.

Unwanted filter effects come in all kinds, all variable, some controllable, some not, some obvious, others less so. Some filters are better than others, eg quality multi-coated vs resin grad, cheap vs expensive etc, but no filter is immune.

The question is not whether filters used purely for protection reduce image quality, because they do - sometimes a lot. You just have to weight up the pros and cons. I don't care for protection filters at all, becuase 99% of the time I just don't need one. For other folks, that situation is reversed. But I've got a protection filter, fits all my lenses. Last time I used it was in sea spray which is horrible stuff and I was very grateful to have one. A lens hood is a 100% rule though.

Ta for that - I don't know much about the technical side of things.

I think you've put your finger on it where you say "99% of the time I don't need one". I guess I'm one of the 'other folks'; I shoot close to 99% outside, often on the coast, or in nasty weather, or things like horses or rugby players who send sprays of mud (and worse!) all over the place. Anything that helps to protect the kit is worth having. And of many hundreds of thousands of shots taken for my work, I honestly have noticed no overall reduction in the results. And I seem to be getting plenty of work, so presumably others - the ones who pay for the stuff, who tend to be quite fussy - agree. So my filter tends to stay in place by default.

And I'm with you on the lens hood thing.

 

[Gazbag]

I only have one half decent lens and I have always had a good filter on the end of it, might try without just to see the comparision. Really only on to offer protection as I have no idea when and when not to use different filters :bonk: