Uv filters

[Thevikingvaper]

As we know uv filters don't really do much with digital cameras but I was wondering if they would help with shooting at night aren't they ment to help reduce glare? Or so it says on the packet. Would using a uv filter make any difference to a night shoot? Just wondered as I got a uv filter with a lens that I brought and never really gave them much thought before hand.
Thanks in advance ☺

 

[Phil V]

As we know uv filters don't really do much with digital cameras but I was wondering if they would help with shooting at night aren't they ment to help reduce glare? Or so it says on the packet. Would using a uv filter make any difference to a night shoot? Just wondered as I got a uv filter with a lens that I brought and never really gave them much thought before hand.
Thanks in advance ☺

They're more likely to increase glare.

A small understanding of optics should tell you that adding 2 more glass surfaces increases the chance of flare.

 

[MartinCornwall]

Yes they definitely add flare if there are any light sources in the shot. I only use them when it is necessary at night because I live on the coast and the air is very salt laden in the wind.

 

[seriousrikk]

As we know uv filters don't really do much with digital cameras but I was wondering if they would help with shooting at night aren't they ment to help reduce glare? Or so it says on the packet. Would using a uv filter make any difference to a night shoot? Just wondered as I got a uv filter with a lens that I brought and never really gave them much thought before hand.
Thanks in advance ☺

An increase in lens flare and a reduction in contrast would be the likely outcome.

Unless you are shooting somewhere at night with a lot of stray UV light

 

[realspeed]

As we know uv filters don't really do much with digital cameras but I was wondering if they would help with shooting at night aren't they ment to help reduce glare? Or so it says on the packet. Would using a uv filter make any difference to a night shoot? Just wondered as I got a uv filter with a lens that I brought and never really gave them much thought before hand.
Thanks in advance ☺

What gave you the idea quote" uv filters don't really do much with digital cameras" unquote.It all depends where and what the light is like at any given place. I found for example in Yosemite National Park (USA) when I was there one November a UV filter helped tremendously.

It also depends on what camera and lens one uses. Those at the bottom of the market (say around the £300 mark) may not get the benefit of what different filters can achieve. Further up in the market (about £ 1.500/2,000+ or thereabouts) one goes and the better quality lens one uses then UV filters really come into their own as do other filters

 

[Thevikingvaper]

Was looking on YouTube about uv filters and all the videos said that that there only good for protection nothing else. I'm really new to photography like a few months so it's all new to me. Thanks for the advice I will look more into it

 

[Phil V]

What gave you the idea quote" uv filters don't really do much with digital cameras" unquote.It all depends where and what the light is like at any given place. I found for example in Yosemite National Park (USA) when I was there one November a UV filter helped tremendously.

It also depends on what camera and lens one uses. Those at the bottom of the market (say around the £300 mark) may not get the benefit of what different filters can achieve. Further up in the market (about £ 1.500/2,000+ or thereabouts) one goes and the better quality lens one uses then UV filters really come into their own as do other filters

It's all opinion but I disagree with just about all of that. Physics tells me that adding more glass can't improve an image, and UV filters were required for film, but the filtering is added to the digital sensor in the design.

 

[Hunders]

I stick B+W 007 nano MRC clear filters in front of all my lenses for protection. They are fairly expensive but don't degrade image quality from my testing where as I have definitely noticed some degradation from some UV lenses that I've tried.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

I stick B+W 007 nano MRC clear filters in front of all my lenses for protection. They are fairly expensive but don't degrade image quality from my testing where as I have definitely noticed some degradation from some UV lenses that I've tried.

I use the exact same ones on mine, too.

 

[Nawty]

What gave you the idea quote" uv filters don't really do much with digital cameras" unquote.It all depends where and what the light is like at any given place. I found for example in Yosemite National Park (USA) when I was there one November a UV filter helped tremendously.

It also depends on what camera and lens one uses. Those at the bottom of the market (say around the £300 mark) may not get the benefit of what different filters can achieve. Further up in the market (about £ 1.500/2,000+ or thereabouts) one goes and the better quality lens one uses then UV filters really come into their own as do other filters

It's all opinion but I disagree with just about all of that. Physics tells me that adding more glass can't improve an image, and UV filters were required for film, but the filtering is added to the digital sensor in the design.

I agree with Phil, the idea that cost or quality of gear (other than the quality of the filter) will have an effect is ludicrous. In fact you could argue the other way in that it would be cheap lenses benefit from expensive filters as the filter MIGHT have better ant-reflective coatings on, but even that's tenuous.

UV filters are from the (mostly) bygone era of film. Film is also sensitive to UV so if you didn't have a UV filter on then you would get a lot of haze - a real physical effect you can easily see. Modern cameras have UV filters built in so don't need them. I was nearly 6000m up on Kilimanjaro where by rights the UV level is very high and in the days of film you would be using a UV filter ('up mountains' was a common usage scenario for UV filters), but on my digital camera there was no UV haze at all, nada. In fact because of the clear atmosphere the images are crystal clear.

Us a UV filter for protection if you must but be under no illusion that it will reduce haze.

 

[MartynK]

Was looking on YouTube about uv filters and all the videos said that that there only good for protection nothing else. I'm really new to photography like a few months so it's all new to me. Thanks for the advice I will look more into it

There have probably been more arguments about the 'protection' value of filters, JPEG v raw and grey imports than anything else on these forums! Just use the search facility if you want to read the various opinions.

I do use a filter if there's a lot of dust, sand, grit, spray (or whatever) blowing around, if I have one with me, but I don't believe UV/plain glass filters offer any significant protection against impact damage. Lens hoods do, and help to prevent flare/glare. I always use one, and this has worked very well for me for donkey's years.

 

[odd jim]

They're more likely to increase glare.

A small understanding of optics should tell you that adding 2 more glass surfaces increases the chance of flare.

Plus refraction back onto the sensor from the back of the filter creating a further ghost image of any lighting and flare.

 

[odd jim]

What gave you the idea quote" uv filters don't really do much with digital cameras" unquote.It all depends where and what the light is like at any given place. I found for example in Yosemite National Park (USA) when I was there one November a UV filter helped tremendously.

It also depends on what camera and lens one uses. Those at the bottom of the market (say around the £300 mark) may not get the benefit of what different filters can achieve. Further up in the market (about £ 1.500/2,000+ or thereabouts) one goes and the better quality lens one uses then UV filters really come into their own as do other filters

How did the UV filter help?

Digital sensors don't need a UV filter, they have one built in, so anything that claims to help by filtering UV light with a digital set up is nothing more than a placebo. They have absolutely no effect on UV light (but they will reduce IQ and contrast at varying scale).

They would only be of use with film (potentially).

 

[odd jim]

Was looking on YouTube about uv filters and all the videos said that that there only good for protection nothing else. I'm really new to photography like a few months so it's all new to me. Thanks for the advice I will look more into it

They're not even of use for protection.

There's a YouTube vid where they test a few filters. Some offered no more protection than a taught sheet of a4 paper.

 

[pete s]

This is an interesting discussion/debate. I put them on my lenses as I would rather clean sticky marks, dust, etc from the filter glass than the optics of my lens. If a filter becomes scratched or damaged it is easy to replace. Talk of image quality being reduced by the addition of another later of glass is of slight concern to me, but is logical.

 

[odd jim]

This is an interesting discussion/debate. I put them on my lenses as I would rather clean sticky marks, dust, etc from the filter glass than the optics of my lens. If a filter becomes scratched or damaged it is easy to replace. Talk of image quality being reduced by the addition of another later of glass is of slight concern to me, but is logical.

It's very hard to scratch a front element.

I never use them, and in 30 years I've not damaged one.

I do always use a hood though.

The other thing about adding a layer of glass - it's not just because it an extra layer that it reduces quality, even the expensive filter glass is cheap and of relatively poor quality (compared to the element glass), so you're reducing your whole lens in quality to that of the filter.

 

[Nawty]

This is an interesting discussion/debate. I put them on my lenses as I would rather clean sticky marks, dust, etc from the filter glass than the optics of my lens. If a filter becomes scratched or damaged it is easy to replace. Talk of image quality being reduced by the addition of another later of glass is of slight concern to me, but is logical.

Scratching a lens is nigh on impossible unless you actively go out of your way to do so and even then a scratched lens doesn't really make much difference to image quality (can make them a bit more prone to flare but that doesn't matter if you use a hood.

If you are shooting in sea-spray, a sandstorm or where mud is being flung around (like at a motor rally) then I can see an argument for them but even it isn't critical. The only one of those scenarios that concerns me at all is the sea spray as salt water is just nasty to most things.

edit: have you seen this? https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches/

 

[pete s]

It's very hard to scratch a front element.

I never use them, and in 30 years I've not damaged one.

It's paranoia then and possibly unfounded. Going to give it a go then and try using my lenses 'naked'. I'll report back if I notice any difference in IQ.

 

[odd jim]

It's paranoia then and possibly unfounded. Going to give it a go then and try using my lenses 'naked'. I'll report back if I notice any difference in IQ.

...with a hood!

 

[Cannyekerslike]

In days of old if a front element got a chip or a scratch we used to fill the damaged area with mat black paint to cut down the chances of extra refraction from the damaged area. You can do a fair bit of damage to a front element and still get good use from it if used wisely.

 

[pete s]

...with a hood!

of course.

 

[realspeed]

As I said and still maintain it depends where you use them . I have had great success in places such as where I mentioned . Maybe those who are anti UV filters have not used them under the right conditions which you would be hard to find in the UK if at all

 

[odd jim]

As I said and still maintain it depends where you use them . I have had great success in places such as where I mentioned . Maybe those who are anti UV filters have not used them under the right conditions which you would be hard to find in the UK if at all

No it doesn't, it's basic science. Like I said it's a placebo, I suspect it made no difference at all - in fact it's scientifically impossible for it to have made a difference with regards to UV light with a digital camera

I'm very surprised to see your school of thought on this.