How many use UV filters?

Do you use a UV filter on your lenses all the time?

  • Yes

    Votes: 101 49.3%

  • No

    Votes: 104 50.7%
  • Total voters
    205
Robbo

Robbo

Messages
3,962
Edit My Images
Yes
just curious more than any thing.....

EDIT: this is causing a few problems with people and feeling it brough up all the time, all i want is figures, simple yes and no im not after reasons why or when to you, just a yes or no for my own personal settling.

This came about as all shops I spoke to make it sound like EVERYONE uses them all the time and I was curious abuot the truth in FIGURES.
 
The coating on modern lenses means they probably aren't really needed, but I use them as protection for the lens and i'm gad that I do. I dropped 18-200mm lens and fortunately it was only the UV filter that got damaged.
 
I fit one only when I am in an environment where the front element could be at risk from significant damage.

Otherwise I use the lens hood for general protection - with the added bonsu that I rarely have flare issues
 
Yep, on every one. I buy a lens, I buy a top notch filter to go on the front from the day it comes out of the box. The only exceptions are those that don't take a filter - 16mm fisheye, 300f2.8 (which actually has one built in on the front) 500 f4 and macro 60 because it is such a deep lens.
 
I am so so clumsy it pays me to fit one, and I am forever getting finger smudges on the filter and would rather rub it off a filter than a few hundred quid lens....:eek:
It only takes a spot of grit you have not noticed to put a scratch on it.
 
only use a filter when sand/grit/mud may get thrown at the lens like beach and mountain biking, otherwise i just use a hood which stops fingerprints, reduces flair and generally protects the front element. and when i clean my lenses i use a minimum of a microfiber cloth but normally only do it at home and combine a rocket blower, lens pen and microfiber so damaging the front element while cleaning isnt really an issue *touches wood*
 
Nope. Used to, until I saw how much it affected image quality.
 
68 lps can you give some examples of this effect?

i use them religously, rallying is hard on lenses in terms of mud, dust and stones and i'd rather replace the filter than front element, also resale value will be smashed down if front element is chipped!
 
seriously these threads are beginning to **** me off

when circumstances require end of


when was the last thread running?

last week there were 2 at once

ffs



<expects someone to search out me asking a really dumb q aswell>
 
I use one when there's a high risk to the lens... stones and dust flying about... sea spray etc. Otherwise no. I've had to many odd effects on images with them fitted. Sorry I've not got any examples... I binned them.
 
david1701 said:
seriously these threads are beginning to **** me off
when circumstances require end of
when was the last thread running?
last week there were 2 at once
ffs
<expects someone to search out me asking a really dumb q aswell>
Click to expand...
Just ignore them then.. simples!
 
david1701 said:
seriously these threads are beginning to **** me off

when circumstances require end of


when was the last thread running?

last week there were 2 at once

ffs



<expects someone to search out me asking a really dumb q aswell>
Click to expand...

**** ing hell chill out

i said just curious...nothing more

dont waste your time reading or replying if its doing your head in,

i didnt know there was other threads i dont come in this section much and dont have time to search every post day in day out. I send my sincere apologies my humble lord.

But unfortunately there are loads of people on here like me who are just starting out and dont really know much, and dont want to waste money on things they might not need and cant afford to waste. If you dont have constructive criticism dont waste time posting.
 
I use mine when required, like tonight when taking shots of firebreathers. I had paraffin sprayed all over me and my camera.
 
This has been done to death on many a forum, but nope, I don't use them. Fell for it originally but soon learnt the error of my ways.

Cheap ones harm the image too much (remember the rule, cheap glass on expensive glass - no!). Expensive ones still can have a negative impact and though you might think you're protecting the lens, it's also costly to break a filter (and shattered filter glass can still scratch a front element).

Personally I'm firmly of the belief that it's just a way of retailers flogging extra stuff they have a good margin on. Always laugh at the usual line in Jessops and the like about how you need one of their UV filters.

Dropping a lens is rare though it does happen, but my house insurance covers it. However using a lens cap is far easier and cheaper for protection and less likely to scratch the front element if it breaks! I see no point in a filter for protecting against drops.

Using a UV filter for the job they were designed for is another matter, although as said the coatings on lenses these days negate the need somewhat. Maybe they're useful for certain environments (water, sand, etc), although does it make much difference if the stuff ends up on the filter or lens? Either is going to have to be cleaned and if not you'll get the crud in shot whichever you go for.

Oh, and cleaning a filter often in my experience has poor results compared to cleaning a quality front element on a lens. For some reason filters easily smear and scratch. Don't know what it is about lens elements but they are much harder to do the same to, hence again no need for a filter for protection. It's just doing harm on there.
 
Don't use it if you don't want, but don't complain if you scratch it or need to clean very often. Also many people including me would never buy a scratched lens as it suggests further mis-handling.

Good multi coated (over 3x layers) filters don't visibly degrade quality, sometimes even correct some problems. £5 ebay junk and Hoya green don't count as good filters.
 
A thin piece of glass with a metal screw thread is not necessarily cheap,in direct comparison to a lens it maybe,but when you think a lens is full of electronics,motors, blades e.t.c approx £25 or more for a piece of thin glass is quite expensive!!
 
I have them, but very rarely use them.For most of what I shoot the hood is protection enough.However, certain situations I stick them on,like having a remote camera under a hedge awaiting horses/dogs jumping over.

Each to thier own........:)
 
i use one on my 24-105 mosty i remove it when i need to. dont use it on my 50mm though and there the lens i use most.
 
david1701 said:
sorry about the possibly ott response, no offence meant robbo been one of those days
Click to expand...


no probs, it was just a figures question really, hence the pole thats all i was after. Under stand that alot of the same things can pop up, but i didnt want to waste 100 pound + on filters i wasnt sure about and the way some shops go on is like everyone has them lol
 
c_robinson said:
68 lps can you give some examples of this effect?
Click to expand...

lps? 68? :bang:

Afraid I can't give examples, but the effects became apparent last year when shooting the moon on a 400D with Canon 70-300. I just couldn't get the image sharp. Until someone questioned whether I had a UV filter on. I did! I removed it! I had sharp pics! I've never used one since! :)
 
There are three schools of thought on this - always, sometimes and never. I'm in the second category.

Digital sensors aren't sensitive to UV the way film is, so the filters aren't really necessary for this. I always use a hood, and fit a filter if conditions are harsh, such as blowing dust, sand and water.
 
Yes, but only the best quality filters. For some lenses it completes the weather seal.
 
urgh cant believe how many people are questioning this thread!

Im not after ifs why when are wheres, it was a simple post that i want to find out how many people, fingures only, no reasons why they use or when to use etc.

all i wanted was figures, yes and no. Im not questioning when to use and reasons why. Im not an amoeba.
 
Surely it's not difficult to ignore a thread if the title clearly indicates what it's going to be about?

I use them on my main lenses when outside, but I'm not convinced they're necessary.
 
Actually I'm glad I came across this thread. I've had filters on my main 2 lenses (nikon 28-70 and 70-200) for about a year, and almost forgotten they were there. Shots from my Nikon 70-200 vr haven't been quite as sharp as I might have hoped. My 14-24 obviously doesn't take any filters due to immense bulbousness :) but shots are so sharp on it you can cut yourself. I'd put this down to the newer tech involved with this lens but it might be worth doing further investigation now.

(Filters I use are Hoya uv pro 1 digital by the way)
 
fabs said:
Let'skeep it friendly shall we? As Dman says, it's easy to ignore a thread.

Robbo, you can't really expect to starta thread and for people just complete the poll. Forums are for discussion. ;)
Click to expand...


yes i know :) i was just gettin a bit frustrated at people taking there time to comment negatively

i do appreciate all the information given
 
I had to answer no. I do not have a UV filter on the lens all the time.
Over 99.99% of the time I do though.
I remove it in scenarios where there is no possible damage to the lens from sticky fingers or flying debris, and when having a filter on is going to be detrimental to the image.
 
Robbo said:
This came about as all shops I spoke to make it sound like EVERYONE uses them all the time and I was curious abuot the truth in FIGURES.
Click to expand...

Shop Assistant: Oh no Sir. Those so-called 'protective' filters are just a great way we can earn some extra profits, by selling people cheap filters. Then when they come back complaining about the terrible photos from their new camera we can explain how it's caused by the filter - then sell them an expensive one as well! We're raking it in!
 
I went out and bought filters for all my lenses when I was new to the hobby. Most people do.

Rather like politics, nobody really changes their views on the issue, but when they do they tend to become very vocal on the issue.

So go ahead until you get bored of buying them. It might not deteriorate your images, it might protect your lens from disaster, but it WILL cost you dear for good ones. The choice is yours.

Graham
 
i have three lenses 50mm,18-70mm and a 55-200mm, i have a jessops 55mm UV which attaches to the 55-200mm or the 18-70mm and a camlink 49mm UV to attach to the 50mm and TBH im not arsed about UV's at the end of the day the can degrade IQ but sometimes emergency calls and when photographing water drips or im dirty environments then i use them.
 
All my lenses (that have a front filter-thread) all the time - always...

Only time I'd ever take them off is if I were sdoing a night shoot with point-light sources visible in the frame...

The Pro-series filters are good enough that you'd need scientific bench equipment to tell the difference...
 
not really a clear cut yes/no question as it depends on where i am and what lens im using..

18-50 = no, doesnt go anywhere that needs it
70-200 = yes, comes to rallys and other dusty/gritty places
120-300 = no, the hood can swallow a bus and i cant afford a 105mm filter lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top