UV filters (do you still use them?)

[ABTog]

It's probably be covered many times, with many people on both sides of the argument..
"yes I use filters, I want to protect my lens"
"no, don't bother, they're not worth it"

Well, in case you were considering putting a UV filter on your lenses, take a read of this article from Roger Cicala from Lens Rentals (a company that sees, tests and repairs thousands of lenses each year)
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/05/yet-another-post-about-my-issues-with-uv-filters/

Take a look at the images from their test:
With filter

Without filter

His conclusion: "There are circumstances where good-quality UV or clear filters are really a good idea. But there are no circumstances where a low-quality filter is a good idea. None."

If you want to read a more in depth analysis of whether UV/protective filters should be used, check out this other article, which talks about the cost/benefit of using them: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

Beginners should probably take note too, don't let the sales person sell you a cheap filter "for protection" as it's not worth it.

 

[jamesev]

Used to use skylight filters as protection but not any more why have good glass then diminish its effectiveness with a layer of cheap glass

 

[Ed Sutton]

As I take photographs of the real world and not of "an array of collimated 5-micron pinholes" I'll carry on using UV filters until I notice anything untoward.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I'd never used them until last week when I was shooting in a foundry. I thought it might be prudent given all the dust and smoke and other cr@p in the air. Bought a few cheap ones for the lenses I used, will probably not use them until I shoot there again and then I'll bin them.

 

[BBR]

That effect looks more like polarised than UV to me?

 

[Retune]

Whether or when to use protective filters is one of those things on which there'll never be agreement, but if you are going to use one, I agree with Roger Cicala it really needs to be a good one. For me that means a decent brand that uses good optical glass, with both multicoating (to reduce flare) and an outer 'easy clean' layer (it's hard to get rid of smears on coated filters that lack this). B+W MRC, B+W MRC-Nano, Hoya HD and Hoya Fusion (aka Evo) tick all these boxes.

 

[ABTog]

As I take photographs of the real world and not of "an array of collimated 5-micron pinholes" I'll carry on using UV filters until I notice anything untoward.

Notice that the article mentions that the owner of the lens was complaining about soft images, ie normal use. So it was affecting what they were shooting not just "5 micron pinholes".

Personal choice though.

 

[woof woof]

His conclusion: "There are circumstances where good-quality UV or clear filters are really a good idea. But there are no circumstances where a low-quality filter is a good idea. None."

Based on those examples and that statement I think the guys an idiot or he set out to prove a point as best he could, I thought the world and his dog knew that shooting with a light source in the frame could lead to problems? And I can think of a couple of scenarios when even a cheap filter might be better then nothing... some lenses AFAIK require a filter to be weatherproof and I walk on my local beach in all weathers including driving rain, sleet, snow and wind blown spray and sand. Back in my DSLR days I always had a filter fitted and even now that I've moved to CSC's with generally much smaller diameter lenses I still on occasions use a cheap filter but I suppose the difference between me and the author is that I engage my brain and think about what I'm doing, why I'm doing it and the circumstances I'm shooting in and subject and lighting in which I'm shooting.

I've never seen soft results with cheap filters.

PS.
Having just read the OP again... That guy is no idiot... but I think he's stating the bleeding obvious.

 

[Raymond Lin]

My camera came off the tripod when I was in Stockholm and I didn't have a hood on the lens and it landed face down, lens first into the ground.

End result is a bent filter that needed pillers to remove but ultimately the lens and camera itself came away without a scratch.

So a £50 filter saved my £1,000 lens from damage.

Yes, all my lenses have filters on, because I shoot weddings and elbows fly on the dance floor and beers get spilled often and some lenses need the filter to complete the weather sealing.

 

[DG Phototraining]

Never used filters for protection, never needed to either - I'm defo in the 'waste of money' camp

Dave

 

[badboy1984]

Waste of money in my opinion unless shooting in extreme condition. i.e sand, mud etc.

If you do buy and use them, get a quality one. THe cheap one is really bad.

 

[hobodan]

I always use them on my most used expensive lenses, and I always buy a good quality Hoya HD. The key is using a high quality filter that won't affect iq. I would much rather replace a filter than a front eliment

 

[RJ Bradbury]

Since they don't really do a lot on digital and I don't want to put cheaper glass on good glass I'm in the nope camp.

I do however always use the lens hoods even if not needed, just out of habit.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Don't get me wrong, most situations they are not needed, for most people you don't need it.

If you shoot birds or landscapes or even street photography, your subjects are far away and the former 2 you are in a relatively controlled environment. Certainly, if I am primarily a studio photographer I wouldn't use one. The lens optics wasn't designed with this glass in front in mind so any glass, however good, will degrade the image, for my work however, although the front element can be replaced easily in some lenses and with a quick turnaround with CPS, that is still not quicker than me just remove a broken filter and keep shooting.

 

[Rosedale]

On a camera like the Fuji X100 series, the lens moves in and out whilst focusing. A filter effectively seals the lens and stops dust ingress. A good idea imho

 

[JJ!]

Out of habit I always do. Hoya Pro-1 for me. Can't say noticed any difference with or without. I'm either not looking hard enough or just not been in a situation where it has mad a difference.

 

[4wd]

Out of habit I always do. Hoya Pro-1 for me. Can't say noticed any difference with or without. I'm either not looking hard enough or just not been in a situation where it has mad a difference.

You would probably see a slight degradation checking a 100% crop.
Whether it matters or not is the question.
I've had a dusk shot of moon spoiled by internal reflection from a UV too, I keep hood on and generally don't use lens cap either.
Nothing bad has happened.
Most people are reasonably careful with expensive lenses, and even if it got scratched it seems to have minimal effect on image.

 

[woof woof]

I've thought of another occasion I used to use them... who shooting gigs... beer and what comes out of people and flies everywhere at gigs isn't gear friendly and although there were lights in the frame I used the filter anyway and no one ever said "You should have taken the filter off for that one mate."

 

[Ed Sutton]

What confuses me about UV filter hate is the popularity of 10 stop neutral density filters, polarisers and graduated filters. How can anyone bear to use them? Or do they have some magical property that preserves the Holy Grail of 'image quality'?

 

[badboy1984]

UV filter doesn't do much apart from protecting your lens or the cheap one introduce more problem then good. 10 stop, CPL and gead filter is a different thing to enhance or change the image. The cheap 10 stop, CPL and grad filter also cause more problem then good.

No hate on the UV filter, if you decide to use, just get the good one.

 

[odd jim]

As I take photographs of the real world and not of "an array of collimated 5-micron pinholes" I'll carry on using UV filters until I notice anything untoward.

But to be fair, under normal conditions, especially with long lenses (look through a 600mm with one attached!), the degradation in IQ is still noticeable, even with 'good' ones.

They offer no protective qualities either. They are only useful against sea spray.

 

[odd jim]

My camera came off the tripod when I was in Stockholm and I didn't have a hood on the lens and it landed face down, lens first into the ground.

End result is a bent filter that needed pillers to remove but ultimately the lens and camera itself came away without a scratch.

So a £50 filter saved my £1,000 lens from damage.

Yes, all my lenses have filters on, because I shoot weddings and elbows fly on the dance floor and beers get spilled often and some lenses need the filter to complete the weather sealing.

I think sometimes it can be a placeabo, sometimes luck (both ways). I know of smashed filters that went on to cause serious scratches to lenses from the shattered glass, and even filters where the filter ring embedded into the lens barrel! Here is a good video that shows from direct impacts, theyre really not much use;

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds


Particularly after 5:42 where he does the damage test.

I just use a hood with every lens, as not only are they good for frontal impacts the decent / OEL ones are also good at absorbing the shock of the impact lessening the impact damage to internals. Of course, they help improve contrast too from stray light.

 

[Luke__S]

I have a UV filter for for each of my lens but 95% of the time they are sitting at home, I only tend to use them when I am in really dirty / adverse conditions. In a few weeks I will be shooting in the cab of a steam loco and I will probably bring them with me for that due to the amount of oil, dirt and grit in the air.

 

[odd jim]

I always use them on my most used expensive lenses, and I always buy a good quality Hoya HD. The key is using a high quality filter that won't affect iq. I would much rather replace a filter than a front eliment

They wont help protecting your front element, they are not much better than a sheet of paper against direct impacts, see the video I posted above, its quite shocking!

 

[odd jim]

What confuses me about UV filter hate is the popularity of 10 stop neutral density filters, polarisers and graduated filters. How can anyone bear to use them? Or do they have some magical property that preserves the Holy Grail of 'image quality'?

But those filters serve a visual purpose, and the effect of the filter outweighs the (varied) IQ degradation issue. I see that as a completely different application.

That said, I used a Hoya Pro HD Poloariser in New York on my 24-105L when shooting near the Hudson River to reduce glare from the water and add some blue to the skies as it was very sunny, and the IQ degradation on this was obvious and IMO ruined some shots. Even at 24mm you could see a difference in sharpness and additional CA.

 

[badboy1984]

I will only ever use a UV filter if I shooting in extreme environment where abit of IQ degrade is acceptable to protect the lens. i.e beach place with lots of sand and potential sea water spray etc, muddy environment etc.

 

[Ed Sutton]

But to be fair, under normal conditions, especially with long lenses (look through a 600mm with one attached!), the degradation in IQ is still noticeable, even with 'good' ones.

They offer no protective qualities either. They are only useful against sea spray.

But those filters serve a visual purpose, and the effect of the filter outweighs the (varied) IQ degradation issue. I see that as a completely different application.

That said, I used a Hoya Pro HD Poloariser in New York on my 24-105L when shooting near the Hudson River to reduce glare from the water and add some blue to the skies as it was very sunny, and the IQ degradation on this was obvious and IMO ruined some shots. Even at 24mm you could see a difference in sharpness and additional CA.

The only time I've noticed any weird s*** going on with a UV filter was on a Sigma 150-500, so I ditched it.(As I said initially, I use filters until I see them cause a problem.) Even then it didn't 'ruin' any pictures.

Some of my lenses have expensive filters on them, some have cheap filters, some have none. Looking at the pictures no normal person would be able to say which, if any, filter was used.

If 'IQ' is someone's primary concern when taking photos then they need psychiatric help!

 

[odd jim]

The only time I've noticed any weird s*** going on with a UV filter was on a Sigma 150-500, so I ditched it.(As I said initially, I use filters until I see them cause a problem.) Even then it didn't 'ruin' any pictures.

Some of my lenses have expensive filters on them, some have cheap filters, some have none. Looking at the pictures no normal person would be able to say which, if any, filter was used.

If 'IQ' is someone's primary concern when taking photos then they need psychiatric help!

So you still use a 110 point and shoot??

As I said, the very decent polariser did ruin the shot for me, a few actually, as when I looked back, I wanted to go back and shoot that set without it (taking a hit on the reflections), but by then I was back on the other side of the pond.

Needless to say, none of those images with the polariser ended up in the book and went un-printed, so I'd say it effectively ruined them. And that was using a filter for a valid reason, and I'm an advocate for still using physical filters, as for their application they still beat doing it digitally in post and always will. But no so a UV filter.

If you step back and look at it rationally, the use of UV filters are utterly pointless. The reason for their being is now obsolete - we do not need to filter UV light from our cameras, and they offer no real protection whatsoever (see the video I posted above). So why take the IQ hit, which is present in real world shooting, whether you can personally see it or not (I can with all filters at screen size), for absolutely no benefit. Its pointless.

 

[Ed Sutton]

So you still use a 110 point and shoot??

A 126 actually.

 

[woof woof]

What confuses me about UV filter hate is the popularity of 10 stop neutral density filters, polarisers and graduated filters. How can anyone bear to use them? Or do they have some magical property that preserves the Holy Grail of 'image quality'?

Just in case you really don't know and for newbies to filters... polorisers have their uses such as for when coping with reflections and giving skies a nice look 10 stops and other ND's can be use to give you a longer shutter speed when you're looking for a special effect such as creamy water shots etc...

I must admit that although I've gone out equipped with filters and a tripod intending to shoot a creamy water shot I've never been able to bring myself to do it, like a more natural look with some movement in it. I have used ND's and longer shutter speeds for people shots in the past but not for years. In more recent times I've used ND's to bring the shutter speed down when shooting with wide apertures using cameras with limited shutter speeds.

 

[DG Phototraining]

If you step back and look at it rationally, the use of UV filters are utterly pointless. The reason for their being is now obsolete - we do not need to filter UV light from our cameras, and they offer no real protection whatsoever (see the video I posted above). So why take the IQ hit, which is present in real world shooting, whether you can personally see it or not (I can with all filters at screen size), for absolutely no benefit. Its pointless.

Keep the lenshood on at all times and - here's a radical thought - be careful !!! I've been shooting 37 years now and taking care of my expensive things, whatever they are, seems to 'protect' them well enough

Dave

 

[woof woof]

No, they're not utterly pointless, at least not always as they do complete weather sealing with some kit and they do give a level of protection against sand, grit, salt water, beer, lager, spit, vomit and anything else that would otherwise land directly onto your lenses front element. A lens hood will help with some of this stuff heading for the front of your lens but the stuff it doesn't stop a filter would.

 

[JJ!]

I find that the filter on my 50mm is easily to clean than the lens itself - mainly due to the recess on the 50mm.

These UV filter threads cause so much debate! Yes that video shows there is a difference, but there are just as many videos out there showing the opposite.

 

[odd jim]

No, they're not utterly pointless, at least not always as they do complete weather sealing with some kit and they do give a level of protection against sand, grit, salt water, beer, lager, spit, vomit and anything else that would otherwise land directly onto your lenses front element. A lens hood will help with some of this stuff heading for the front of your lens but the stuff it doesn't stop a filter would.

But, I'm hedging my bets here, most UV users don't shoot in these environments (ie, gigs) and only a negligible amount take their DSLRs to the beach (but still use their UVs everywhere else). So I'll correct, for the vast majority of users, UV filters are pointless.

Also the jury is out on whether all types of filters help with weather sealing. Even in the lens manuals for Canon lenses that need the (and its specific) "Canon Protect Filter" they state they are "unable to provide complete protection from dust and moisture”.

 

[odd jim]

I find that the filter on my 50mm is easily to clean than the lens itself - mainly due to the recess on the 50mm.

These UV filter threads cause so much debate! Yes that video shows there is a difference, but there are just as many videos out there showing the opposite.

The opposite? I've never seen a video show a UV filter improves the image (or a video that shows it doesn't degrade the image)?

The video above I really posted to show there are no protective qualities, rather than the hit in IQ, as this is why most people use them.

 

[JJ!]

The opposite? I've never seen a video show a UV filter improves the image (or a video that shows it doesn't degrade the image)?

The video above I really posted to show there are no protective qualities, rather than the hit in IQ, as this is why most people use them.

Opposite was the wrong wording - I meant there are plenty of images/videos out there showing that UV filters make no difference to IQ.

I use mine due to the conditions I shoot in (Equestrian - dusty/sandy enviroments), I would never expect them to save my lens in a fall.

 

[odd jim]

Opposite was the wrong wording - I meant there are plenty of images/videos out there showing that UV filters make no difference to IQ.

I use mine due to the conditions I shoot in (Equestrian - dusty/sandy enviroments), I would never expect them to save my lens in a fall.

Can you show me one, as thats physically impossible?

I shoot a lot of equestrian, a lot. And I get close with a 14mm on FF, low down at jumps when I can and I've never felt the need for one, nor suffered any damage or dust issues. I always, always use a hood though.

 

[woof woof]

But, I'm hedging my bets here, most UV users don't shoot in these environments (ie, gigs) and only a negligible amount take their DSLRs to the beach (but still use their UVs everywhere else). So I'll correct, for the vast majority of users, UV filters are pointless.

Also the jury is out on whether all types of filters help with weather sealing. Even in the lens manuals for Canon lenses that need the (and its specific) "Canon Protect Filter" they are "unable to provide complete protection from dust and moisture”.

Is the Canon protect filter better or just to put more money in Canon's bank account rather than Hoya's?

I'm not sure I'm completely unique in using DSLR's and other kit for gig and beach shots and I'm pretty sure I've seen others using similar kit in these places too As I said earlier re filters and when and where to use them, maybe it's because I engage my brain.

 

[odd jim]

Is the Canon protect filter better or just to put more money in Canon's bank account rather than Hoya's?

I'm not sure I'm completely unique in using DSLR's and other kit for gig and beach shots and I'm pretty sure I've seen others using similar kit in these places too As I said earlier re filters and when and where to use them, maybe it's because I engage my brain.

Well, I'm sure you're not unique in shooting gigs, which is why I said "vast majority" (I bet if you did a straw poll only here, the results would be pretty low on those regularly shooting gigs).

I don't know what the Canon Protect Filter is, never seen one nor wanted or needed to. But, as they are very specific about using this filter to provide the full seal (which Canon say might not work anyway), by using, say a Hoya, would that a) not work as well or b) be a get out clause for Canon for any warranty issues if there were a liquid / dust / dirt egress into the lens and you used a third party filter?

 

[JJ!]

Can you show me one, as thats physically impossible?

I shoot a lot of equestrian, a lot. And I get close with a 14mm on FF, low down at jumps when I can and I've never felt the need for one, nor suffered any damage or dust issues. I always, always use a hood though.

Well I feel the need and have had issues with dust - even with a hood so will continue to use. I have never seen anything that has degraded my images and will probably never will. Maybe its because I am not looking at 100% all the time and haven't even got a monitor to show any difference in output at all.

I understand you are fully in the no filter camp, but until actually see anything on my own images that the UV filter may have caused, I am happy, you are happy, everyone is happy!