UV filters? Worth buying?

J

jrf23

Suspended / Banned
Messages
143
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wanted to know whether it's worth having a filter? Does it really do that much to help?

Thanks
 
You're in danger if getting a hundred different answers to this!
Personally I wouldn't bother - others swear by them!
 
I use them on all my lenses other than the 300mm f4 IS. It left unsightly bokeh.
 
Worth buying if you're buying them for the purpose for which they are made, i.e. you wish to block uv light, etc.

But not worth buying a cheap one if the sole intention is to protect the lens, as you will be downgrading the quality of the lens.
 
I am in the yes camp... but mainly due to lens protection reasons. I would rather shell out for a new filter than a new lens!

However I dont have expensive enough lenses to worry too much about photo degradation.
 
I only use them for protection if i'm going to be shooting in a dirty,dusty or Salty air by the sea..:)
Some folk say they slightly degrade image quality..always get the best quality you can afford if you're going to use one..:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
dmcaloney said:
I would rather shell out for a new filter than a new lens!

However I dont have expensive enough lenses to worry too much about photo degradation.
Click to expand...

Not picking on you here bud, just using your very common thoughts/comments for my point :)

The RED comment comes straight from the scaremongering of filter sellers! :bat:

I've been a snapper for over 30 yrs now and done some pretty stupid stunts to get photos and put those cameras in some pretty hairy predicaments. Never have I chipped a lens - banged a few pretty hard but filters don't help with that

I also don't know any Pro mates, or amateur mates for that and I am a member of a very large club hereabouts, who have ever damaged a lens where a filter may have helped protect it - keeping the lenshood on at all times is a more effective protection

So I'm pretty sure that other than by the sea to avoid sand/salty water filters don't really offer any protection at all. And if, as everyone rightly suggests, you only use top-end filters and have 3 or more lenses then the sum total of those filters may well be more than some of your lenses cost anyway - and then of course there's insurance too which should solve the problem if you are unlucky enough to walk your lens onto a metal spike at speed

Honest opinion formed from many years as a tog... filters are NOT for protection


The BLUE comment is simply misplaced. If you have top quality lenses and put filters on them then the loss of IQ may not be noticeable or important, whereas if you have poorer glass to start with then reducing their IQ with cheaper filters is not going to make you a happy bunny at all :(


IMHO - filters should be used where they have an effect on improving the image, and used sparingly too

Oh - and I don't use ANY except a 7-stopper sometimes (well twice in the last 3 years since I bought it!!!)

HTH

DD
 
You have to look at it in the context of the environment you're working in. When I shoot sailing all my lenses have one permanently on, to complete the weather sealing and stop the lens coating getting salted up. Since most watersports events prints are pretty small the loss of IQ is insignificant.

Shooting a wedding, exactly the opposite - no benefit from the filter, and the IQ may matter. Use a filter if you have a need, whether it be protection or filtering, and not if you don't!
 
Well, I feel that is a pretty comprehensive answer! As things stand i certainly don't need one now, but I might get one next year for the 100-400L I've just bought when I go on safari.

Thanks all! Very good answer!
 
can-of-worms1.jpg
 
DiddyDave said:
I've been a snapper for over 30 yrs now and done some pretty stupid stunts to get photos and put those cameras in some pretty hairy predicaments. Never have I chipped a lens - banged a few pretty hard but filters don't help with that

I also don't know any Pro mates, or amateur mates for that and I am a member of a very large club hereabouts, who have ever damaged a lens where a filter may have helped protect it - keeping the lenshood on at all times is a more effective protection
Click to expand...

Filters are more effective for some lenses than others. Take the 17-40/16-35/10-22 for instance. The hood is so feeble that if the lens was to fall onto a surface that wasn't perfectly flat (say a rock, for instance), the front element could quite likely smash directly onto it. I think for lenses like these where the front element is quite prominent, and the hood quite shallow, the filter is a useful addition. It also depends on the working environment you are in, and let's not forget, adding a filter to some of Canon's lenses completes the 'vironmental seal.

I find it unlikely that these premises are based on scaremongering alone, otherwise Hoya wouldn't make their rock hard HD filter series, surely.
 
Last edited:
trencheel303 said:
if the lens was to fall onto a surface that wasn't perfectly flat (say a rock, for instance), the front element could quite likely smash directly onto it.
Click to expand...

I once stood next to someone whose lens did exactly that - he had a filter on - trust me - a filter smashed all over your front element is not protection - the lens was covered in tiny scratches from zillions of fragments of filter!
 
But the lens would have been destroyed otherwise? What filter was he using? From what I have seen on the 'net, hoya HD filters are designed to crack like bulletproof glass, rather than smash all over the place.
 
awp said:
I once stood next to someone whose lens did exactly that - he had a filter on - trust me - a filter smashed all over your front element is not protection - the lens was covered in tiny scratches from zillions of fragments of filter!
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

Good one awp :thumbs:

Perhaps then in the 'stick it on the floor directly onto a jagged rock' scenario the lens cap may be more useful???

DD
 
trencheel303 said:
What filter was he using?
Click to expand...

sorry no idea - didn't even know the guy - he wasn't in the mood for idle chatter after that either! It was a few years ago.

Best way to protect the lens is to keep your eyes open and your brain switched on. It's worked for me in 40 years shooting! :)
 
Last edited:
if noting else it will stop the lens getting scratch , when in you bag if the lens cap comes off, it can happen. i quite agree that if droped is no good at all.

you can remove it while you use your camera though.

Cheers Steve
 
DiddyDave said:
:lol::lol::lol:

Good one awp :thumbs:

Perhaps then in the 'stick it on the floor directly onto a jagged rock' scenario the lens cap may be more useful???

DD
Click to expand...

It's quite hard to take a photo through a lens cap :thinking: :lol:
 
A filter isn't going to prevent damage to a dropped lens, especially onto rock or similar as AWP points out - it can even contribute to more damage than would otherwise have occurred. A good lens-hood is just as vital in those circumstances.

My reason for using them all the time on all my lenses is that they've saved my front elements so many times, I'd feel naked without them on my 'work' lenses.

A good quality filter will not noticably degrade your images except in certain situations, no matter what some people here may say.

You have to make the choice as to whether you need a protection filter.
I personally wouldn't buy a second-hand lens that hadn't had a UV filter fitted by the previous owner as I don't know what barbaric lens-cleaning methods he might have used: at least with a UV filter on, that lens's front element will have had minimal exposure to snotty hankies, damp, sweaty t-shirts and spit-moistened fingers - all of which I have used to remove crap from the protection filters on my lenses...

The only times I'd remove them would be night photography with point light sources visible in the frame (and not always then either if there wasn't time) or if I were planning to add additional polarising, ND or creative filters...

Probably for the careful hobbyist-user, protection filters aren't an absolute necessity - for me, I can't afford not to use them. I went through approximately one a month during my last job overseas...
 
I think Rob's usage of gear falls under the "hostile environment" in more ways than one and in his shoes you are darned right I'd be using one.

But I don't. I do keep some in the right sizes but I don't even put them in my camera bag unless I know I am going somewhere I think I might benefit for using one. Boat trips, that kind of thing.

I have experienced a good filter seriously degrading images on a Canon 70-200mm f4. I thought the lens must be faulty it was so bad but I tested it with and without the filter and bingo, it was a problem. So yes Rob, unfortunately it can happen and I have first hand experience of it. Threw the offending item in the bin!
 
AliB said:
I think Rob's usage of gear falls under the "hostile environment" in more ways than one and in his shoes you are darned right I'd be using one.

But I don't. I do keep some in the right sizes but I don't even put them in my camera bag unless I know I am going somewhere I think I might benefit for using one. Boat trips, that kind of thing.

I have experienced a good filter seriously degrading images on a Canon 70-200mm f4. I thought the lens must be faulty it was so bad but I tested it with and without the filter and bingo, it was a problem. So yes Rob, unfortunately it can happen and I have first hand experience of it. Threw the offending item in the bin!
Click to expand...

I don't blame you - I'd throw a Canon lens in the bin too...:thumbs:
 
I threw the whole kit bag Rob!

(only kidding Canonites, I actually liked the 70-200 f4 very much and kept it alongside an f2.8IS)
 
.... and here is me thinkning about putting a filter post up :)

Serisley though - I have taken quite a lot of shots across the bay etc and you quite often get that 'mist' in the far background. I was led to believe that a UV filter would help reduce that and give a clearer picture ??? If thats the case then surley thats a use ? ( BTW I'd love to know for sure as I'm thinking about buying some ).

As far as lens protection goes.... well I'm OCD about my car and I can tell you I am OCD about pretecting my lens' so although I dont have a cover I keep caps on, in bags and generally look after it while using. ( no hankies alowed ;) )

Terran
 
ccsnet said:
.... and here is me thinkning about putting a filter post up :)

Serisley though - I have taken quite a lot of shots across the bay etc and you quite often get that 'mist' in the far background. I was led to believe that a UV filter would help reduce that and give a clearer picture ??? If thats the case then surley thats a use ? ( BTW I'd love to know for sure as I'm thinking about buying some ).

As far as lens protection goes.... well I'm OCD about my car and I can tell you I am OCD about pretecting my lens' so although I dont have a cover I keep caps on, in bags and generally look after it while using. ( no hankies alowed ;) )

Terran
Click to expand...

Distance 'haze' might be reduced a wee bit, especially at altitude but the camera's CCD already has a UV filter fitted: what you're experiencing across a sea-bay is more likely to be water vapour or mist which wouldn't be affected.
Time of day and direction of the prevailing light will affect that far more than a filter.
 
Arkady said:
Distance 'haze' might be reduced a wee bit, especially at altitude but the camera's CCD already has a UV filter fitted: what you're experiencing across a sea-bay is more likely to be water vapour or mist which wouldn't be affected.
Time of day and direction of the prevailing light will affect that far more than a filter.
Click to expand...
.... so in short.... not worth it.... Well - that answers that .... a set of ND filters is defo on the list though for long term exposures.

Next question.... gel or screw on... I guess it makes no diffrence but seeing as we are talking filters.....

Terran
 
ccsnet said:
.... so in short.... not worth it.... Well - that answers that .... a set of ND filters is defo on the list though for long term exposures.

Next question.... gel or screw on... I guess it makes no diffrence but seeing as we are talking filters.....

Terran
Click to expand...

No - the only valid rason for fitting a UV filter to a modern DSLR's lens is for protective purposes...
If you don't think it needs the additional protection (you're wrong, BTW - by the time you need it, it's too late), then don't fit it...
 
I have actually dropped a lens where it landed on the filter edge, smashing the filter but saving the front element.

I also use my lenses in the rain and snow etc, lenshoods don't keep it all off. OK I can clean it - but I can give the front a wipe on location without worrying if I might put a small scratch on the front element.
 
Arkady said:
If you don't think it needs the additional protection (you're wrong, BTW - by the time you need it, it's too late), then don't fit it...
Click to expand...

Rob - I've 30 years without a scratch to a front element, and NONE of my Wedding Pro mates use filters for protection - that hot desert Sun howling wind and endless abrasive sand has affected you mate :D

When you've been back in good ole blighty for a while with no bullets about and only aunt Betty to bother you at a Wedding you may come around a bit. You may even take that flak jacket off too in time :lol:

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Rob - I've 30 years without a scratch to a front element, and NONE of my Wedding Pro mates use filters for protection - that hot desert Sun howling wind and endless abrasive sand has affected you mate :D

When you've been back in good ole blighty for a while with no bullets about and only aunt Betty to bother you at a Wedding you may come around a bit. You may even take that flak jacket off too in time :lol:

DD
Click to expand...

You've just been lucky - tomorrow ALL your lenses will be destroyed by flying dog-bogies...

You'll see...

Plus: Weddings - not generally the most hostile working environment imaginable...:thumbs:
 
Arkady said:
Weddings - not generally the most hostile working environment imaginable...:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Well at the last one there was a pretty mean looking wasp around for a while, and I was scratched by a prickly bush - so to all Wedding togs out there... hey, let's be careful :thumbs:

DD
 
Arkady said:
No - the only valid rason for fitting a UV filter to a modern DSLR's lens is for protective purposes...
If you don't think it needs the additional protection (you're wrong, BTW - by the time you need it, it's too late), then don't fit it...
Click to expand...
Sooooo how about you guys recomend a good one I can buy with out going mad on the cash side ?

Some thing that wont interfere with the picture thats took - I guess a clear one ? Flip.... just relised I'm back to square one here.... because you cant have lens covers on filters and I'll get paranoid about that been scratched :thinking:

eg - http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-hoya-58mm-hmc-uv-c-/p1519063

Terran
 
Last edited:
Hoya's HMC or Pro-1 UV and protection filters came out almost equal (and in first place) in terms of quality in a test I saw linked-to on here recently...
B&W are also good but fared not as well...

If you have £1,000+ lenses, then get the Pro-1 series filters, any others get the HMC series...
I have a mixture of both on my glass and can't tell the difference to be honest...
 
Arkady said:
Hoya's HMC or Pro-1 UV and protection filters came out almost equal (and in first place) in terms of quality in a test I saw linked-to on here recently...
B&W are also good but fared not as well...

If you have £1,000+ lenses, then get the Pro-1 series filters, any others get the HMC series...
I have a mixture of both on my glass and can't tell the difference to be honest...
Click to expand...

Out of all the UV filter threads this is the 1 post I have been looking for amongst all the arguing. 1 52mm HMC will be ordered this payday to stop me scratching my element.

btw 7 day shop is £3 less for the 58mm Hoya HMC over WE.
 
ccsnet said:
Serisley though - I have taken quite a lot of shots across the bay etc and you quite often get that 'mist' in the far background. I was led to believe that a UV filter would help reduce that and give a clearer picture ??? .
Click to expand...

No, but see: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=214716

it's a thread I created not so long ago that gives a bit of an insight into why the washed out appearance occurs on some days and how you can go about sorting it in PP. its nothing to do with UV, which is filtered on digital camera sensors anyway.
 
I have to ask, why, if the UV filter distorts the image, have filter makers not created a super clear glass filter to "protect" your lens. seems like a big market for people who want to protect their lens without adding UV filtering.
 
foz said:
I have to ask, why, if the UV filter distorts the image, have filter makers not created a super clear glass filter to "protect" your lens. seems like a big market for people who want to protect their lens without adding UV filtering.
Click to expand...

They have - they're called 'Protection' filters and we've been referring to them all through this thread...
But since the UV protective coatings don't detract from the image any more than a Protection filter (which still requires multi-coatings to reduce flare etc) and are usually easier and cheaper to get hold of, most people just buy those.
 
Last edited:
I see these filters as a way of protecting my lens investment for future resale.

All my lenses have filters and I am VERY glad the wee marks etc. are on the filters and not on the lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top