Are UV filters an essential bit of kit?

M

Martylaa

Suspended / Banned
Messages
305
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Are they?
Brand new to this and need to know if i should be buying a couple for my lenses.
Thanks
 
Not essential, people do use them. But if you're new to it I wouldn't recomend going out and buying loads
 
have 1 lens and will be buying another thats it at the mo so was thinking of ordering 2 filters 14 quid each, is it worth doing?
 
I have a couple of cheap ones from bay. Only really use them to protect the lens
 
I have seen lots of flare and ghosting from uncoated UV filtering glass filters such as sold and thrown in as a bonus by Jessops. Multicoated filters, even cheap ones from the likes of 7dayshop are much better. When shooting into the light it's best to remove even these.

I like protection filters because once I wacked the front end of my 70-200 onto the pointless metal gear stick knob on the car, filter cracked, lens unmarked. I also like to remove raindrops etc with the corner of my freshly laundered shirt.
 
Definitely not essential, they are very much a "personal choice" filter - some people use them on all their lenses for "protection" & others don't use them at all, I'm the latter of the two.

I'll not go into the debate as there's lots of threads around discussing them

Simon
 
What Simon said.

Fact - introducing another piece of glass will reduce IQ (although it may be only by a tiny amount) on the other hand it may save your objective lens from whatever crud/detritus is around.

The need for a UV filter as such may have been a reality on film cameras but on DSLRs the filter in front of the sensor will kill UV.
 
UV filters hardly make a difference to most shots (in terms of exposure), but they are at the very least useful for protecting the lens.
 
if youre going to use them please spend more than £14 on them.. why would you want to put a cheap and nasty bit of glass on the front of your lens?

i have one in my bag for the 70-200 but only goes on in harsh conditions, i.e. gravel rallys, at the beach but i spent much more than £14.. for anything else the lens hood should protect.
 
Protection is the word, if your just spent over a grand on a lens. Even getting the smallest mark/ scratch i'll here you crying form here. But as with Neil I've payed over £70 for one.
 
I've got a £50 one on my 70-200mm F4L, I leave the 18-55mm and 50mm f1.8 'bare', because they're relatively cheap to replace. Definitely wouldn't want to pay for a repair to the front element of the 70-200!
 
Cyprino said:
I've got a £50 one on my 70-200mm F4L, I leave the 18-55mm and 50mm f1.8 'bare', because they're relatively cheap to replace. Definitely wouldn't want to pay for a repair to the front element of the 70-200!
Click to expand...

Pretty much this, you'd be paying almost the price of the lens (kit lens/nifty fifty) for a UV filter that causes the least image quality loss as possible.


I think this is a pretty well known review of UV filters http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

If you're taking your lens somewhere where there's a higher than usual risk of damage to the front element then definitely get a UV filter.. otherwise you'll usually get better pictures without one. It's not essential.
 
Depends on your line of work:
Afghanistan_Andrew_Parsons_PA.jpg

PA Photographer Andrew Parsons in Afghanistan, 2006.

The 'un-filtered' wide-angle lens is only on the camera because his 'standard' zoom was trashed earlier on when taking cover.
 
For the most part the money would be better spent on lens hoods.

Cheap filters are generally going to reduce your image quality - and will be more susceptible to flare. I only use a filter when there is a real risk that my front element will get stuff I don't wan on it - so when I photography rallies or when I do beach/offshore photography. When I do the filter is a good one (B&W)

All other times the hood is ample protection.
 
I've got a Hoya UV filter for each of my lenses, for protection more than UV filtering. They were pretty expensive but cheaper than replacing the lens, and I don't see much difference in IQ.
 
I did a range of test photos to assess a new lens and found that my existing lens, with the UV filter (Hoya) fitted, produced a distinctly inferior quality photograph. When I removed the filter the quality improved markedly - filter in bin !!!!
 
Moonrakerz said:
I did a range of test photos to assess a new lens and found that my existing lens, with the UV filter (Hoya) fitted, produced a distinctly inferior quality photograph. When I removed the filter the quality improved markedly - filter in bin !!!!
Click to expand...

Hoya filters reportedly pretty good and should not impact IQ that much - although depending where it was purchased from you could have had a fake one.
 
Moonrakerz said:
I did a range of test photos to assess a new lens and found that my existing lens, with the UV filter (Hoya) fitted, produced a distinctly inferior quality photograph. When I removed the filter the quality improved markedly - filter in bin !!!!
Click to expand...

I go back to many years, I have a bagful of filters. Did much the same as Moonrakerz and found UV filters generally degraded the image. However, my years take me back to the days when a sky filter was used a lot. Trial and error has got me using the 'old' sky filters, I'm into JPG 'picture from the camera', it works for me. :shrug:

If I did not like the sky filter . . . having heard of and experienced poor IQ with UV's, I think I would rely on the lens hood to do the protecting.

CJS
 
I use them, for the main reason of protection, after all, a UV filter costs a lot less to replace if damaged than the front element of a lens.

Also, my photography is at a stage, that even if the UV filter does reduce the IQ a little, it is unlikely to be noticeable anyway :lol:
 
Interesting read this thread.My OH uses filters for Protection only afaik.
 
You don't need to use a UV filter on a DSLR, as others have said, but a lot of people do use them to protect the front of the lens. I don't, unless I'm shooting in a harsh environment - sand/dust or blowing spume etc - and then you have to start thinking about protecting the camera too.

It's up to you really, but I strongly recommend getting good filters if you do decide to use them. These are pricey. You may not need the very best but be prepared to spend a fair amount of money.

Whatever you decide, I recommend using lens hoods even more strongly. They cut down on flare caused by light striking the lens at an angle, and offer a fair mount of protection against accidental knocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top