The Protective Filter Debate

[JohnQ]

I have been reading a lot about the UV filter debate. Some folks swear by leaving it on the lens at all times for protection. Others seem to think that the UV filter will ruin some the the image quality for better lenses. I was just wondering what the general consensus was amoung you guys??

[lukesellickphotography]

I voted YES.

It will hopfuly save you from buying a $2000 lens.

I know i would love to buy a $30 filter then a whole lens

[studio206]

i put a UV filter on every lens i own. not only does it cut down on UV rays to reduce UV haze, it also protects your lens from dust and scratches.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I use hoods on each and every one of my lenses. I never go without. UV filters, however, are last on my list. They have the potential to increase flare, ghosting, and degrade image quality. I don't pay for those red stripes to get less than optimum performance. ;) The only filter I can honestly say I use fairly regularly is a circular polarizer.

I would, however, have UV filters on hand, should I need to shoot in adverse conditions.

If it makes you feel more at ease while shooting, by all means, put a filter on. I wouldn't want to scratch up the glass on my lenses either. For what it's worth, though, a couple of my lenses are years old, and the glass is absolutely perfect.

[TX_Gulf_Coast]

Ok, so I am one of the odd men out here. (Ronald, too.) I DO NOT put a 19.00 UV filter on a 1,500.00 lens. It does have an effect on image quality and in the end, does not protect your investment.

NOW...that being said, IF you buy a GOOD B + W filter, (cost, about 75.00) that will protect your your lens (investment). B + W filters are about 3 times as thick of glass and well made. They do not degrade the image quality and actual will not shatter as the much cheaper versions will. I have seen at least 4 lenses with cheapo UV filters on them, where the front element was hit, something struck it, etc. and the filter was broken...those cheap filters shattered and SCRATCHED the element. Flip side of that, I have seen B + W filters broken, but never shattered and those PROTECTED the lens.

One time I will put a filter on: When shooting in adverse conditions such as at the beach with blowing "salty" seawater and sand, etc. or at a shoot where there is alot of airborne polutants in the air. (i.e. at a chemical plant etc. when doing commercial work.)

[akhater]

One of the most debated question in the photography world IMO there is no correct answer :)

Puting a $xx filter in from of my 1.5k lens seems sometimes ridiculous even if i paid $150 for this filter.

Usually I prefer to hood my lenses for protection, however if I am shooting on the beach or dusty places (football match etc...) I do add a UV/BW filter.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

One thing a lot of people may not realize is that on Canon L lenses (many of them, anyway), the front glass is actually protective glass, not one of the "real" elements. It has a super spectra coating, and is extremely strong. This element in most cases can be replaced for no more than a couple hundred dollars (77mm and over, I'm talking). The "nice" elements (the ones you pay for, like fluorite) are well inside the lens and have no chance of being broken unless the thing hitting it is a bullet. ;)

[savona]

One thing a lot of people may not realize is that on Canon L lenses (many of them, anyway), the front glass is actually protective glass, not one of the "real" elements. It has a super spectra coating, and is extremely strong. This element in most cases can be replaced for no more than a couple hundred dollars (77mm and over, I'm talking). The "nice" elements (the ones you pay for, like fluorite) are well inside the lens and have no chance of being broken unless the thing hitting it is a bullet. ;)

Thats correct and great explaination. I do not use filters on my lenses unless I specifically need it for that shoot or occasion.

[Adaptive]

Also, scratching the front element will not make you have to spend another $1000+ to get it fixed. A guy on another forum just dropped a 16-35L from about 6feet and buested the lens all to pieces. He shipped the lens to canon for repair and the bill was only about $108 with shipping and tax included!!!!!!

I'd rather pay the 109 once than degrade my image quality for every shot.

But seriously, I do usually always have a UV filter on my lenses. CP is great too but I have a habit of forgetting to take it off, then I have a night time shoot with flash and I'm wondering why I am having to set my shutter and aperture soo low. :)

[nburwell]

One thing a lot of people may not realize is that on Canon L lenses (many of them, anyway), the front glass is actually protective glass, not one of the "real" elements. It has a super spectra coating, and is extremely strong. This element in most cases can be replaced for no more than a couple hundred dollars (77mm and over, I'm talking). The "nice" elements (the ones you pay for, like fluorite) are well inside the lens and have no chance of being broken unless the thing hitting it is a bullet. ;)

Hmm, I did not know that, and I have lens filter on both my L glass lenses, too. That's definitely good to know though.

However, I voted yes. I guess because I'm VERY overprotective of my photographic equipment. I like to precise care of it. I guess you can say I'm OCD when it comes to keeping my photo equipment both clean and free of marks or scratches, especially my lenses. Although I either use a skylight or UV filter for my lenses. I always have had filters on any lens that I own. I guess it just comes second nature to me. Whenever I get a new lens, the first thing I do is screw a lens filter on there.

[MillerPhoto]

It all depends on what I am shooting. If I am out in the wood shooting nature or at car shows, I do not use a UV filter. But if I am in a place that could get a little dusty or a chance of my camera getting bumped in a crowed area. I always use the UV filter to help protect my lens. Many times I have seen some new photographers walk through a crowded area or even and walk through a door and bump the lens against the frame.. so far ive seen 2 lenses break.. and 5 saved by UV filters and its better to see a $15 filter get broken rather then a $200-$500 lens. Also I use collapseable rubber hoods which offer more protecion when I have to set the camera down on a table or if it gets bumped then its not going to pop off the hard hood or damage the lens.

But like I said.. Depends on person preference and variable situations.

[LuisV]

Occasionally.

When shooting in normal conditions, the UV filter can cause flare. It may not.... but it could. I don't chance it.

The only time a UV filter for protection would be considered is in salt water spray or in windy conditions on loose soil. (eg. Beach, dry sports field with dirt flying about, etc).

The only other time a UV filter is placed on the lens is when I need to filter UV light. High altitude, eg.

[katescape]

I was gonna vote "yes" , but after a conbination of personal experience and reading these threads, I've put my UV filters in the bag ...only to be used in adverse conditions.

[skraw]

I actually tested this last week.

I set up a lighted shoot, and took a shot with the U/V filter, then one with out. I noticed absolutly no difference in quality when viewed at 100%. Now, outdoor shoots and different conditions may be different. Also, I dropped my camera once from about 3 feet up. It fell on a tile floor, and the U/V filter was demolished, but the lens was fine. However, I usually leave mine off unless I am shooting in hazardous conditions outside.

[MillerPhoto]

You wouldn't find much difference in a Indoor shoot cause there is not really any UV light, depending on the bulbs. As for the flare in a outdoor shoot. Yes I have had that happen before and removed the filter and it was gone.. But really it depends on the strength of the sun and whats reflective around you and even the atmosphere conditions of like the cloud cover and such. Eaither way. It comes down to personal preference. And definalty a lens saver in adverse outdoor conditions.