UV filters....do we need them and do they protect the lens?

Yes and Yes.

I won't take a new lens out until it has a new UV screwed on the front. First thing I do. When you have seawater thrown over your gear on a regular basis, you will appreciate the value of a UV filter to keep the salt off the lens - just pour fresh water from a bottle over the filter, dry with a chamois and carry on shooting.

UV filters save the front element from a whole world of abuse.
 
Simon, that's the whole point of the video,....have you watched it?:)
 
Only ever had one lens with a uv filter on because it came that way when I bought it. Leica 90mm summicron. Thought it was defective until I removed uv filter. Horrendous lens flare ghosting
 
I never bother, I really don't see the point. Fairly sure this is a hangover from the good old days of film
 
Hey, I didn't start this thread to provoke a discussion, it was to give people the opportunity to see the video!!:):)
 
Uncle buck said:
Never used them and have never damaged a lens,Yet!!! Why spend £££££ on a decent lens only to stick a piece of cheap glass over it?:exit:
Click to expand...

Love this answer every time it comes up,a good filter will cost more than each element in a lot of lenses so you have to be careful not to put a good filter in front of a lens with cheaper elements.
 
I watched the bits that made sense without audio... on a work PC here. The general gist seems to be that the UV filter really serves no purpose at all other than to make your pictures worse. As far as damage is concerned, put a lens hood on - that's more likely to save the front element of your lens from any damage taken from scrapes and knocks. If you drop the lens, it probably won't be the front element, but the internal mechanisms that get damaged - the filter will therefore make no difference at all. He also makes the good point that a broken lens, doesn't mean the whole thing needs replacing. If you do damage the front element, it can be replaced individually.
 
Lensflare said:
Yes and Yes.

I won't take a new lens out until it has a new UV screwed on the front. First thing I do. When you have seawater thrown over your gear on a regular basis, you will appreciate the value of a UV filter to keep the salt off the lens - just pour fresh water from a bottle over the filter, dry with a chamois and carry on shooting.

UV filters save the front element from a whole world of abuse.
Click to expand...
Now we know where your username comes from ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
George said:
Hey, I didn't start this thread to provoke a discussion, it was to give people the opportunity to see the video!!:):)
Click to expand...
That was always going to happen, as soon as you mention those horrible filters!
 
...ok, I'm a few mins into the video and already he's making some odd statements. When acknowledging there is a drop in sharpness he then says "but there's nothing a bit of sharpening cant fix". You can't sharpen an un-sharp image for one thing, you cannot fix that with a pull on the sharpness slider!!! And is it me, or are his test shots a little poor on the IQ side anyway?

Right, I'm going to watch the rest now as he seems to be making more sense as it goes...
 
Last edited:
I understand what the video is about but, having asked the same question recently, this seems to take the argument to the extreme.

My query was more to do with the accidental knock on a wall corner/door handle/pointy out thing !! etc, as I turned around/moved about.
 
The conclusion is as I'd expect - they don't save lenses, not only that, some are weaker than a sheet of paper, lol!
 
Bit like those glass screen protectors, I've smashed 3 so far given up on them and have yet to damage an unprotected screen
 
lukey1965 said:
I understand what the video is about but, having asked the same question recently, this seems to take the argument to the extreme.

My query was more to do with the accidental knock on a wall corner/door handle/pointy out thing !! etc, as I turned around/moved about.
Click to expand...
Watch the video all the way through, you'll see he leaves the hood on as I do, which takes most of the knocks you describe.
 
northernbiff said:
Watch the video all the way through, you'll see he leaves the hood on as I do, which takes most of the knocks you describe.
Click to expand...

Sorry, meant to say the few occasions the hood is off !!

Looks like:

No filter, hood on at all times, don't drop the bloody thing, and all will be well with the world !!
 
I have know 3 friends that have dropped their lenses with cameras attached, its the lens hoods or the bayonet mounts that suffer. Id rather a hood than a filter but , in a sandstorm or at the beach with spray from the ocean i do use a UV filter. Call it a placebo effect but it makes me happy knowing its there in those situations.
 
33L said:
I have know 3 friends that have dropped their lenses with cameras attached, its the lens hoods or the bayonet mounts that suffer. Id rather a hood than a filter but , in a sandstorm or at the beach with spray from the ocean i do use a UV filter. Call it a placebo effect but it makes me happy knowing its there in those situations.
Click to expand...
That seems reasonable.

On another point, there was no mention of what damage the broken filter glass would do.
Little splinters and shards of glass (and smaller glass dust). I suppose there is a small chance of them getting into the mechanism of a lens, but there
is probably more danger to fingers.
 
33L said:
Id rather a hood than a filter but , in a sandstorm or at the beach with spray from the ocean i do use a UV filter. Call it a placebo effect but it makes me happy knowing its there in those situations.
Click to expand...


Excuse the snip, please.

A filter will help protect the front element of a lens in such conditions but the salty air and dust will still be able to get in around the focus/zoom/aperture rings of many lenses, precious few are completely air and watertight.

Used to use skylight filters rather than UV back in film days but even then, only really when shooting slides rather than negatives - any slight cast on neg was usually sorted at the printing stage.
 
Nod said:
Excuse the snip, please.

A filter will help protect the front element of a lens in such conditions but the salty air and dust will still be able to get in around the focus/zoom/aperture rings of many lenses, precious few are completely air and watertight.

Used to use skylight filters rather than UV back in film days but even then, only really when shooting slides rather than negatives - any slight cast on neg was usually sorted at the printing stage.
Click to expand...
Me too. Ah, Kodachrome 25 and 64 :)
 
Lenses like Canon 17-40mm NEED you to put in a filter to complete weather proofing. That's the only time I'd use a UV/protector filter.
 
It's really personal choice.. for most they're not essential but do offer additional peace of mind. I never use them but some do, as long as you use a decent quality one I think there's minimal effect on IQ, maybe a little additional flare in some situations (shooting into the sun)

Simon
 
The video is really worth watching here and hopefully stop the usual 20 pages yes/no argument. I will say like everyone else as already say, i have filters for all my lens and only use it when there's a risk of spraying specially on the beach/cliffs, i am more confident cleaning the filter that the lens itself. But pretty interesting to see that the filter are weaker that a piece of paper... a bit of a surprise.
 
Coming from a birding perspective,where you can pay the same for good glass in a binocular and scope as a lens, no-one uses a protective filter.
The point being, you want the least amount of glass to enjoy the best image and most amount of light.
A front element is made to be cleaned (properly) of crud.
 
* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.

That's my summary of filters and image quality. I don't think there's anything there that is not factual.
 
Did you look at the video?... Some other points in it which were the point of my posting and I really didn't want to start a discussion on the merits and demerits however I suppose that was inevitable!![emoji3][emoji3]
 
wuyanxu said:
Lenses like Canon 17-40mm NEED you to put in a filter to complete weather proofing. That's the only time I'd use a UV/protector filter.
Click to expand...

Those lenses annoy me. Because then if you break the filter - not difficult as the video demonstrates - you have potential for a lot of little shards to get inside your lens. The 17-40mm certainly has this potential...
 
I don't use them. I feel that if you are buying an expensive lens use it as it is. Insurance is there for any accidents.
 
paulefox said:
I don't use them. I feel that if you are buying an expensive lens use it as it is. Insurance is there for any accidents.
Click to expand...

Insurance excess is £250......a GOOD UV filter is about £80 - I put the £80 in front of every lens I have - I have done for all the 30 odd years as a full time professional freelance. I am glad I have with the latest lenses, they are less robust than my older film lenses, pre-autofocus days. If you have the luxury of being able to be careful with your kit, then fine, you can do away with the protective element. If you work hard for a living, and get put in some seriously degenerative conditions, then the UV filter is a must. It probably DOES degrade the image - but not as much as I am incapable of making best use of the potential quality, and it is certainly better image quality than a lens encrusted with salt, sand or concrete dust !
 
Lensflare said:
Insurance excess is £250......a GOOD UV filter is about £80 - I put the £80 in front of every lens I have - I have done for all the 30 odd years as a full time professional freelance. I am glad I have with the latest lenses, they are less robust than my older film lenses, pre-autofocus days. If you have the luxury of being able to be careful with your kit, then fine, you can do away with the protective element. If you work hard for a living, and get put in some seriously degenerative conditions, then the UV filter is a must. It probably DOES degrade the image - but not as much as I am incapable of making best use of the potential quality, and it is certainly better image quality than a lens encrusted with salt, sand or concrete dust !
Click to expand...
...but the point is, they don't protect, some of the filters in that video were less resistant than a sheet of paper!

Using them against sand / dust / spray is fine, but a lot of people think they can protect against hard impacts and front end falls - they can't.

And they have one of the biggest mark up / profit line of pretty much any accessory, hense the push to keep selling these drinks coasters.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
...but the point is, they don't protect, some of the filters in that video were less resistant than a sheet of paper!

Using them against sand / dust / spray is fine, but a lot of people think they can protect against hard impacts and front end falls - they can't.

And they have one of the biggest mark up / profit line of pretty much any accessory, hense the push to keep selling these drinks coasters.
Click to expand...

I have broken a few, always when off the lens! Mostly changing from UV to polariser...you stand on the one you have taken off, or put something else on it, or it rolls off the bag....I have only broken one when fitted to the lens,I fell of the motorbike, the pannier split open and threw my bag down the road. The lens rolled out and the filter was dented, so the glass element cracked and part of it came out. The lens was actually OK, a bit scuffed around the edges, but it worked fine and the lens elements were untouched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top