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

I have actually suffered the nonsense of that video now - conclusion is it is done to rack up views and allow him to sell advertising from it - he promotes several outlets in the video, which in the USA will have attracted a revenue. He did no tests for what most people put a UV filter for - when I have to have a bullet like impact on my lens element, then no the UV filter won't protect it. The lens element is curved, a UV filter is flat - so of course a front element is stronger.

I would love to see him do some tests against hazardous materiels - my 17-35 I bought with the first F5 I think, possibly the F4s - it has t be 18 - 20 years old. The front element has never been cleaned - the reason because it has always been protected by a UV filter. That needs to get cleaned, but the lens element doesn't.

I notice at the end of his machinegun speed talking, he actually promotes the use of a UV filter - so he contradicts himself in the same video. This actually strengthens my arguement that the video is only done to provoke interest and enlarge his audience to gain promotion revenue. I won't be taking too much notice of his tests, because they are not realistic. What they did prove was that the quality of higher end filters is vastly superior to that of low and mid priced ones though!
 
The video shows us that a filter will shatter into sharp shrapnel under impacts that would leave the front element untouched. What the video fails to address is the consequences of this fact.

Glass is hard. Very hard. In fact it's quite likely that there are only two things in your house hard enough to scratch glass - a diamond and other glass. Even steel isn't hard enough to scratch glass. (Note that I'm talking about scratching, not impact damage as in the video). Now I doubt that diamonds are likely to be a common cause of scratched lenses, but quartz certainly is. Quartz is what most sand and much grit is made of. It's also the main constituent of glass. And quartz is hard enough to scratch glass.

So when your low-energy impact shatters your filter you're producing a mass of fragments that can easily cause your front element to be scratched. Exactly the outcome the filter is supposed to prevent.
 
Glass isn't that hard, I have little micro scratches in my glasses from cleaning them every day with a soft cloth!
 
JYC said:
Glass isn't that hard, I have little micro scratches in my glasses from cleaning them every day with a soft cloth!
Click to expand...

Yes. Glass is that hard. Here's the science - LINK. If you don't believe me get a clear glass bottle and try scratching it by scraping a knife against it. You may make marks on the galss, but that's where buts of metal have been abraded - they will wipe off. You're scratcking your lens by rubbing any grit that may be present into the front element. Alternatively, some cleaning cloths actually contain silica for added abrasiveness (itaw).

Oooh! I forgot this one. Most water that doesn't come out of a tap or a bottle contains tiny organisms, many of which have pointy bits, made from silica. So letting lake water dry on your lens then rubbing it with a cloth will grind those little creatures into the glass.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
18 minutes and 46 seconds of that guy going on and on.....sorry, life's too short!
Click to expand...
That's what I thought initially, but I woke up at 03:00 this morning and couldn't get back to sleep. I thought this might help. Here's a summary - (italics are my own thoughts).

Some filters (especially cheaper ones) cause loss of sharpness (especially on long lenses)
All filters (according to the captions on his images) cause some loss of contrast.
Filters can cause flare/ghosting.
All filters smash very easily.
All lenses require much more force to smash the front element.
Sometimes the front element survives impacts that destroy the rest of the camera.
A lens with a filter attached suffers damage at a similar force required to smash the lens alone.
A hood works much better than a filter for protecting a lens (and it prevents, rather than causes, flare).
Replacing a damaged front element is just a couple of hundred dollars - about the same as a couple of good filters.
He uses a filter to protect against things like blowing sand and sea spray. Then removes the filter.
 
On my part, I do believe that UV filters help in protecting the lens, that's why most of my lenses got a UV filter on them.
 
popeyebx said:
On my part, I do believe that UV filters help in protecting the lens, that's why most of my lenses got a UV filter on them.
Click to expand...
Ok, but the evidence is they don't...

UV filters are like religion. With all the scientific and geographical impossibilities some people still believe against all the odds!
 
If you are fitting a UV filter thinking it will protect you from dropping it on the ground, then clearly this was always going to be a nonsense, no filter will protect from that sort of impact (like shown in the film), i'd also be very surprised if anyone genuinely thought this would be the case

However, if you fit a UV filter with the aim of it protecting your lens from dirt, debris, salt etc than i'd agree with that, i know i would rather have a UV filter on my 17-50mm lens as that is my most used (and abused) lens, especially when taking it around anywhere dusty or wet (around the coast for example), but also when it's slung over my shoulder, or attached to my hand (i use a hand strap) it does get the odd knock now and then, and i'd rather do the damage to the filter than to the lens

Luckily i have never actually damaged either a filter or a lens, but it's still piece of mind, and i'm not like some on here who can just afford to buy a new lens or pay for a "cheap" repair (i say "cheap" as i don't consider a couple of hundred pounds cheap)
 
Last edited:
rpsmith79 said:
If you are fitting a UV filter thinking it will protect you from dropping it on the ground, then clearly this was always going to be a nonsense, no filter will protect from that sort of impact (like shown in the film), i'd also be very surprised if anyone genuinely thought this would be the case

However, if you fit a UV filter with the aim of it protecting your lens from dirt, debris, salt etc than i'd agree with that, i know i would rather have a UV filter on my 17-50mm lens as that is my most used (and abused) lens, especially when taking it around anywhere dusty or wet (around the coast for example), but also when it's slung over my shoulder, or attached to my hand (i use a hand strap) it does get the odd knock now and then, and i'd rather do the damage to the filter than to the lens

Luckily i have never actually damaged either a filter or a lens, but it's still piece of mind, and i'm not like some on here who can just afford to buy a new lens or pay for a "cheap" repair (i say "cheap" as i don't consider a couple of hundred pounds cheap)
Click to expand...
Sadly, some do think it'll protect from a significant drop or fall.

How often do we hear "the filter was smashed / dented but the front element was fine..."?

The video goes a long way to show it would have been absolutely fine without.
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
That's what I thought initially, but I woke up at 03:00 this morning and couldn't get back to sleep. I thought this might help. Here's a summary - (italics are my own thoughts).

Some filters (especially cheaper ones) cause loss of sharpness (especially on long lenses)
All filters (according to the captions on his images) cause some loss of contrast.
Filters can cause flare/ghosting.
All filters smash very easily.
All lenses require much more force to smash the front element.
Sometimes the front element survives impacts that destroy the rest of the camera.
A lens with a filter attached suffers damage at a similar force required to smash the lens alone.
A hood works much better than a filter for protecting a lens (and it prevents, rather than causes, flare).
Replacing a damaged front element is just a couple of hundred dollars - about the same as a couple of good filters.
He uses a filter to protect against things like blowing sand and sea spray. Then removes the filter.
Click to expand...
My take also,just common sense really.
 
odd jim said:
Sadly, some do think it'll protect from a significant drop or fall.

How often do we hear "the filter was smashed / dented but the front element was fine..."?
Click to expand...

There must be some clearly delusional people about then

I will also say that having tried my lens with and without filter, i can see no noticeable difference at all, i did once try it on my 300mm f4, but took it off almost straight away as it was showing clear distortion and massive loss of IQ, but on the 17-50mm, nothing at all
 
A few years ago I bought a new 7D and put my 100-400 L on it. The lens had a fairly top end UV filter on it and the photos were so bad I thought the camera was duff. I was thinking about sending it back when I tried the 100-400 again, this time without the UV filter (I'd swapped it to another lens and forgot to put it back on when I left the house) and the difference in the photos was amazing. They were sharp, well focussed, clear and bright, just like they should be. When I got back home I removed all my filters and I've never used them since, unless I know the weather or location I'm shooting is particularly hostile.
 
Thanks all for the info. I am looking to go to a DSLR after getting rid of an SLR 40 years ago for point and shoot. Back then I always had a UV filter on but lenses were not as good. Then I always used a rubber expandable lens hood as the extra protection (not from dropping) but I haven't noticed them recently when I have been thinking of getting back into trying to take better photos.
 
hockeyumps48 said:
Thanks all for the info. I am looking to go to a DSLR after getting rid of an SLR 40 years ago for point and shoot. Back then I always had a UV filter on but lenses were not as good. Then I always used a rubber expandable lens hood as the extra protection (not from dropping) but I haven't noticed them recently when I have been thinking of getting back into trying to take better photos.
Click to expand...
The rubber ones have been pretty much done away with, replaced now with toughened polycarbonate hoods.
 
odd jim said:
The rubber ones have been pretty much done away with, replaced now with toughened polycarbonate hoods.
Click to expand...
I just order them up from the bay or the river :)

I have enough filters to go around my old lenses, at least the ones that need them -Industar and Helios spring to mind.
The Yashica and Zeiss lenses don't need them.
Hoods, I find, are a necessity, especially with older lenses to improve contrast.
 
I did what lots of people do and put them on. Soon came off though and now I just use them as intended. Always have a lens hood though so that offers some protection
 
Interesting thread this as i've always used UV filters for fear of catching the lens glass and scratching it.

I don't think I've ever considered the impact on IQ but then again I only shoot jpegs and am not a pro photographer (far from it) so doubt I would no what degradation I've had LOL

Maybe I should be brave and stop using them...
 
Do whatever works for you. It's all just opinions and none are 'correct'.
Having your filter on or off the camera isn't going to affect your photography negatively unless you're shooting into lots of streetlamps or other bright items which may cause internal reflections.
I sometimes use a filter if i'm somewhere mucky or raining and I may need to wipe my lens on a tshirt or whatnot. If the lens is cheap then i'm not that worried about wiping the front element as the elements on newer lenses are typically very very hard.
In my experience B+W XPro Filters appear to wipe clean the easiest without leaving any residue unlike some cheaper filters.
 
I did go through a stage of taking them off when taking important pics before deciding that I should just use the lens to its best and that means no uv filter on it
 
I've scratched at least two UV filters whilst mounted to expensive glass. Both times I've been really thankful that it was just a 20-30 quid filter that got a mark on it.
 
dandeakin said:
I've scratched at least two UV filters whilst mounted to expensive glass. Both times I've been really thankful that it was just a 20-30 quid filter that got a mark on it.
Click to expand...

But the lens would probably have been fine, with no evidence of contact.

Remember, just because your (relatively to the lens glass) cheap filter got scratched or damaged, it doesn't mean the lens element would have suffered the same damage! They are much harder to damage or even mark than filters.
 
I wrap my camera body in thin tissue paper. At least twice I've torn the tissue paper. Both times I've been thankful that it was the cheap tissue that got damaged, rather than my expensive camera.
 
odd jim said:
But the lens would probably have been fine, with no evidence of contact.

Remember, just because your (relatively to the lens glass) cheap filter got scratched or damaged, it doesn't mean the lens element would have suffered the same damage! They are much harder to damage or even mark than filters.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, but I'd rather not find out. I saw one of the scratches occur to the filter and it was a fair old wack onto abit of metal. Would have been really impressed if the lens didn't get marked without something on the front of it.

Theres an awful lot of lenses sold cheaply that do have small marks on the front element. Admittedly they don't affect image quality, but they definetely affect resale value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top