To UV Filter, to not UV Filter, That is the question.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 25799
  • Start date Start date
Although image quality may be better if you are not a studio photographer
the filters wl save you a lit of grief in scratched or damged lenses which
inevitabe occur if you are moving about on location etc
imo
 
I use kenko pro1d's on all my lenses for protection and to keep the lens element clean. I also have hoods for all my lenses so that takes care of any flare issues.

I shoot in clubs a lot and have no flare issues at all.


remember that some of canon L lenses are not fully weather sealed without the use of a filter.
 
alastairb said:
...in normal environments i just do not get why people would induce flair by having a UV on
Click to expand...

It's a worry...:lol:

Shot straight into the setting sun - note the appalling 'flair' (sic) caused by my Hoya Pro-1 UV filter...lol

4782665058_40530c2327.jpg
 
Arkady said:
It's a worry...:lol:

Shot straight into the setting sun - note the appalling 'flair' (sic) caused by my Hoya Pro-1 UV filter...lol

4782665058_40530c2327.jpg
Click to expand...

If you look more closely Rob, you'll see the horse has been lost completely.
 
ive got cheap uv filters on mainly to protect the lenses rather than show a difference.

J
 
Thirty years of smashing my kit into walls, trees, vehicles and other stuff has proved the wisdom of this.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise photography was a contact sport!

Interesting thread. I used to use UV filters all the time, but now only fit them when I'm shooting in adverse weather conditions. Don't quite know why, but I was advised not to use them all the time by someone a lot more experienced than me, so I just took his word for it.

Janet
 
Janet S said:
I didn't realise photography was a contact sport!

Interesting thread. I used to use UV filters all the time, but now only fit them when I'm shooting in adverse weather conditions. Don't quite know why, but I was advised not to use them all the time by someone a lot more experienced than me, so I just took his word for it.

Janet
Click to expand...

Great post Janet! :thumbs:

The difference between my view and Rob's, is that he works in war zones, whereas the greatest danger for most folks is their own sticky fingers ;)
 
I used to use them all the time because thats what i was told to do.. BUT if they are such a must for every lens.. how come my five and a half thousand pound lens wont even take a uv filter on the front?

I dont use them anymore.
 
HoppyUK said:
Great post Janet! :thumbs:

The difference between my view and Rob's, is that he works in war zones, whereas the greatest danger for most folks is their own sticky fingers ;)
Click to expand...

Even more dangerous - last night some of the car-freaks at the "Old-Timer" car meet had a super-soaker fight at about midnight.
I thought they'd all missed, but I found quite a few dried water marks on the filters this morning...you just never know...
 
In over 50 years of photography (50 years as a pro) I've always kept a UV filter on every lens I've ever owned. Damaged a few filters in that time but I've never damaged a lens.
 
POAH said:
I use kenko pro1d's on all my lenses for protection and to keep the lens element clean. I also have hoods for all my lenses so that takes care of any flare issues.

I shoot in clubs a lot and have no flare issues at all.


remember that some of canon L lenses are not fully weather sealed without the use of a filter.
Click to expand...


Coaster said:
In over 50 years of photography (50 years as a pro) I've always kept a UV filter on every lens I've ever owned. Damaged a few filters in that time but I've never damaged a lens.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest how much did all those filters cost you?

If you have 3-4 large filter lenses you're looking to spend £100+ easily on those filters. £100 would easily get most lenses repaired if you managed to destroy your front element*... Add a CPL to the front of your walkaround lens and take it off when indoors or when it's causing a problem and you'll have the same protection for the lens you use most but have the filter doing something useful.

Obviously if you are actually shooting rallies, sandstorms and watersports then it's a little different but for 99% of people the protection/UV filter is not really going to offer any more protection than a lens hood.

*Discounting the fact a lot of the time damage to the front element will also come with damage to the lens itself. There's no point in having a perfect front element if the lens is broken and in need of repairing anyway. Lets face it if you aren't shooting rallies and sandstorms most of the damage will be done through drops and bangs, something a filter isn't going to protect you from.
 
KIPAX said:
I used to use them all the time because thats what i was told to do.. BUT if they are such a must for every lens.. how come my five and a half thousand pound lens wont even take a uv filter on the front?
Click to expand...

Your expensive lens already has a protective filter on the front of it! The front element of all Canon's big telephotos is designed with a mainly protective role in mind. It's not too expensive (compared to the rest of the lens) and it's fairly easily replaceable.

So does this show that 'protective' filters are a good idea. Well, yes. But only if they're made of thick enough glass to actually protect; the protective element is optically designed to minimise degradation of image quality; they don't make the protective element with flat, reflective, surfaces that cause the ghosting, flare and loss of contrast that all flat filters will produce.
 
I use a Hoya on my canon ef 70-200 2.8 l is usm mk2 no way I'm risking the front element getting damaged I've just purchased a ef 24-70 2.8 usm also waiting on my b&w filter coming before I go outdoors just not worth the risk
 
MissV said:
Seems to be a bit of a religious topic after much discussion with some friends.

Do you have a UV filter on your lens/es? Do you think even if you get a good (say B+W MRC) it's going to decrease the quality of picture? Or is it worth it for that extra bit of 'protection'?

Be quite nice to hear some thoughts.
Click to expand...


YES i have uv filters on all my lenses for protection only. i would rather replace a filter for £30.00 than several hundred for a lens. i also like using graduated filters when in a sunny situation, you can get a nice sky and foreground. tubby.
 
Oggy said:
...as if he needs to go back that far to find this topic. :shake:
Click to expand...

OMG. Imagine the carnage if he goes back and resurrects every single UV/protective filter thread! It could crash the whole Interwebs.
 
...which at times strikes me as no bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top