UV filters????

P

ps2wizz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
92
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello everyone.

Just a quick question, I hae been a DSLR user for about 5 years or so. I have always bin told to put a UV filter on my lens. 1) to protect he lens glass and 2 ) they cut glare out of the shots. My question is. Are they really worth it.

I have a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM on order and was wondering should I put a UV filter on as soon as I get it.
 
In my opinion they're decent enough at protecting the lens but they don't actually help the picture quality anyhow.
 
They protect the glass but you have to ask why it needs to be protected? (from what)

They do not cut glare and could potentially make the glare worse.

However, a lens hood protects the glass and reduces the glare (and you will get one free with the lens)
 
You could just buy A Hoya protector, its just tough clear glass that doesn't pretend to be a U.V filter. Works great for me & I honestly don't notice any degradation in IQ.
Although the camp is generally split down the middle on the benefit or not of protecting the front element with a filter.
 
I keep the lens hood on , I did add a UV filter and really don't think I needed it in the end, other filters can be beneficial but not this one really
 
It's a bit 50/50 for protection. I've had filters take light scratches from zips, shrubbery, buttons etc so that's an upside for them as the scratches would of ended up on the front element otherwise.

However, when one of my lens decided it wanted to give the floor a hug, the filter shattered upon impact causing deep scratches and gouges in the front element which was the most expensive part needed to repair the lens after its hug.
 
This one comes up all the time. Seach for other threads and examples of the problems with filters.

I have a UV filter, and I use it when necessary - things like sea spray or anything else nasty flying about. Otherwise, never - but a lens hood always.

Hoods are good physical protection, even if they usually don't do much to prevent flare. They certainly can't do any harm, whereas filters can and do degrade image quality. The main problem is flare shooting into the light and ghosting with bright lights against dark backgrounds, like sunsets and street scenes at night. Lower grade filters can also reduce sharpness, particularly noticeable with longer lenses that greatly magnify imperfections.
 
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
  • Image degradation is worse with longer focal lengths
 
Thank all for your input. it is greatly appreciated.
 
I stopped using UV filters a few years back. I've never suffered a scratch or crack on any lens I've ever owned. A filter will scratch a lot easier than a lens element, you'd have to give it a good whack off bare rock or so to damage it. A hood is the best way to go.
 
faddius said:
It's a bit 50/50 for protection. I've had filters take light scratches from zips, shrubbery, buttons etc so that's an upside for them as the scratches would of ended up on the front element otherwise.

However, when one of my lens decided it wanted to give the floor a hug, the filter shattered upon impact causing deep scratches and gouges in the front element which was the most expensive part needed to repair the lens after its hug.
Click to expand...

The lens probably wouldn't have been scratched by zips or shrubbery, they are FAR harder than 'filter' plastic or glass.

I've never used a filter for 'protection, and I've not had a scratched lens in 20 years.
 
Last edited:
faddius said:
It's a bit 50/50 for protection. I've had filters take light scratches from zips, shrubbery, buttons etc so that's an upside for them as the scratches would of ended up on the front element otherwise.
Click to expand...

Really!? You've managed to scratch your filters with shrubbery? What were these filters made from - jelly?

Here's a challenge. Get a milk bottle and thrash it about in a shrubbery (one that looks nice, and not too expensive). Now observe the total lack of scratches. Any marks you've made on the glass will come off with a damp soft cloth - you've either removed, or added, gunk.

Glass is hard - harder than steel (that's why glass-cutters used to be made of diamond). It's not going to get scratched by a bit of foliage.

One thing that is good for scratching glass is - other glass, especially sharp bits of other glass. This is why a shattered filter is one of the worst things for the front element of a lens.
 
Ok so changing the topic a little.....

with my new Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens, im sure you all know it comes with a Lens Hood. my question is on a lens like this are the hoods for show???? or are they really worth putting on?
 
ps2wizz said:
Ok so changing the topic a little.....

with my new Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens, im sure you all know it comes with a Lens Hood. my question is on a lens like this are the hoods for show???? or are they really worth putting on?
Click to expand...

The most effective lens hoods, custom designed for a fixed focal length lens and camera model, will be good and make a noticeable difference in difficult (ie back-lit) situations.

But there are two problems with your 24-105. The first, and it applies to all zoom lenses with very few exceptions, is the hood can only be made optimum depth for the widest angle setting - 24mm. So clearly it's not going to provide best shading at longer settings.

The second thing is the 24-105 is designed for full-frame cameras, so the hood will not be as good as it could be on your crop-format 450D, even at the wide end.

However, it may do some good and certainly offers decent physical protection, even if it's only from your own sticky fingers.
 
24-105 hood? It's better than nothing. It can't do any harm. It's free. I can't think of a good reason not to use it.
 
HoppyUK said:
The second thing is the 24-105 is designed for full-frame cameras, so the hood will not be as good as it could be on your crop-format 450D, even at the wide end.
Click to expand...

that will be my next purchase. Im looking at a 5D mk2 or a 6D.
 
odd jim said:
The lens probably wouldn't have been scratched by zips or shrubbery, they are FAR harder than 'filter' plastic or glass.

I've never used a filter for 'protection, and I've not had a scratched lens in 20 years.
Click to expand...

Ok shrubbery wasn't a good example, but corners of fences, gates, putting it down on the ground where stones can inadvertently get kicked about.

Zips can scratch the lens, it happened to me before I started using filters and is why I started using filters.
 
Have to say I've never used a uv and never had any problems
 
Funnily enough Hoppy and I were talking about this a little while ago!

Funny conversation, ended up with me buying a 7D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top