UV filters on Digital cameras - worth it or not

Are UV filters worth using (high quality filters assumed)

  • Not at all - only to protect the lens - but they degrade the quality

    Votes: 22 23.9%

  • Not if you're using a hood

    Votes: 11 12.0%

  • Yes - but only in certain conditions

    Votes: 24 26.1%

  • Yes - always

    Votes: 35 38.0%
  • Total voters
    92
S

sheridant

Messages
1,753
Edit My Images
Yes
if you're not using them for protection - are they still worth having on in any situation

Poll included....
 
The search function will return 101 threads on the subject.
 
actually I won't comment yet.. as I think I can see the results as I voted...
 
depends...

18-50 - no, doesnt really go anywhere that needs protecting from
70-200 - yes, comes to rallys and that gritty dust gets everywhere
120-300 - no, hood could swallow a bus. plus theyre a tad expensive in 105mm diameter lol
 
i clean my lens with a hankie
if i get another camera i will hope it has filter threads for a protective filter
 
If you're buying a high quality lens you must spend a large sum of money on a high quality filter. What's the point otherwise?

I never use filters on my lenses because I can't afford them, and should they break I'd make an insurance claim. (yes I know my logic is flawed, I can't afford a £30 piece of glass but if the lens broke it would cost more).

I have one on my 55-250 because it came with one when I bought it, a Hoya Pro.
 
poll doesn't seem to tie in with peoples opinions expressed in other threads across the site
 
Personally, I leave UV filters on all of my lenses, when they are packed away.
When I am shooting into the sun, or somewhere where there is no risk to the lens, then I remove the filter.
That way, peoples' sticky fingers don't get on the lens elements
(voted yes under certain circumstances)
 
if you're using a UV filter for protection...surely by sod's law, it's only useful if it's on ALL the time...?
 
The nearest option for me was "yes - but only in certain conditions" But really mine are on 99% of the time. If it look likely to cause flare it comes off but thats quite rare.

I think it's a question we'll never agree on.
 
As a rule, generally I don't. I prefer to use hoods, however if a situation arises where the front element will be at risk, I use one. I'd prefer not to, as I don't really want to spend a small fortune on something I very rarely use, however if I was into rallying photography or something on the beach, I'd probably invest in a set of quality filters.
 
in what conditions do the UV filters actually help the queslity of the picture - i thought it was sunlight - where the flare issue they can cause seems to be at it's highest
 
Film is sensitive to UV light and so without a filter landscapes in particular will show more haze in the photo than to our eyes. Doesn't apply to digital.

I use protection filters on certain lenses - my 10-20mm, for example, where the front element is very far forward and the hood is very shallow. And no hood is going to protect you from flying spray or grit.
 
Sorry - for some reason I keep getting double posts even though I only click the button once :bang:
 
foodpoison said:
I never use filters on my lenses because I can't afford them
Click to expand...

The same here.

Some of my lenses have UV filters but only because the lens came fitted with one. I have never bought one separately.

I have always considered that lens manufacturers have gone to a lot of effort to design their lenses and I think they are optimised to be used as they are without an extra bit of (possibly dubious quality) glass on the front.


Steve.
 
sheridant said:
in what conditions do the UV filters actually help the queslity of the picture - i thought it was sunlight - where the flare issue they can cause seems to be at it's highest
Click to expand...

It's more distant haze that they cut down rather than flare. In fact, the filter introduces two more reflective surfaces making the lens more prone to flare.

Lens hoods can make quite a difference here.


Steve.
 
Hate the dratted things. I nearly binned a perfectly good 70-200f4 because I could not get a decent sharp shot out of it. Took them all off and although I do have some good quality ones that I would fit if I really needed them on a building site I avoid fitting them like the plague.
 
AliB said:
Hate the dratted things. I nearly binned a perfectly good 70-200f4 because I could not get a decent sharp shot out of it. Took them all off and although I do have some good quality ones that I would fit if I really needed them on a building site I avoid fitting them like the plague.
Click to expand...

Sequence off 4 shots.

UV filter Off, UV filter On. Shooting into contra light.

uv-filter-on-off.jpg



UV filter still Off, UV filter back On. Shooting into contra light.

uv-filter-on-off2.jpg
 
\uv on definitely looks better IMO in this shot, more pop - what was the filter make/type?
 
Truely it is a protection.

Poorer quality? No big difference just like it wont make the quality better.
 
I also checked "yes - but only in certain conditions", because it came closest.

I always use hoods, and occasionally a CPL or ND filter. I do have a couple of UVs, but the only times I've ever used them are in rough conditions - blowing sand, dust and spume. They're not top quality, but I can't afford the best and I'm not sure it's really going to matter in these conditions, for me, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top