UV or not to UV that is the??

jaywes · 05-13-2012, 11:27 AM

Reading this thread and many of the other threads on this topic still confuses me. There really is a good amount of people on both sides of the argument. I have several filters UV, Skylight, ND & CPL, but not for all my lenses. I really need to do some test to see the IQ differences. I have none so far with my Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

I have an upcoming outdoor car event and it maybe a bright sunny day, ND filters required?? Or just go with no filter at all?

mikeSF · 05-13-2012, 11:40 AM - **1 Like**

this is discussed to death in here.

in short, when i need a clear protection filter, i will not hesitate to use one (airborne sand, ocean spray, thorns in close ups, petting zoo, etc). When I don't need one, you can bet i leave it off to prevent flaring. They are an essential tool for the astute photographer; don't let anyone try to tell you different.

sjwaldron · 05-13-2012, 11:54 AM

I have multi-coated UV filters on the majority of my lenses. Some lenses like the 10-17mm can't use them and others are old or cheap enough that I don't care. The only advice I will give is never use clear glass or UV filters that have no coating.

- You never have to clean the front element of your lens.
- You have added protection from drops, tree branches, rain/water/dust, and various other things.
- Easy to clean because they are basically flat.
- I haven't noticed any image quality issues with decent multi-coated filters.
- I will occasionally use the lens without. Usually at night time or when testing a lens.

My favorite type is Hoya HMC.

RioRico · 05-13-2012, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by mikeSF

this is discussed to death in here.

in short, when i need a clear protection filter, i will not hesitate to use one (airborne sand, ocean spray, thorns in close ups, petting zoo, etc). When I don't need one, you can bet i leave it off to prevent flaring. They are an essential tool for the astute photographer; don't let anyone try to tell you different.

+1 on both counts (talked to death, and essential at times). We need to judge the trade-offs of using ANY filter: When does having an extra layer atop the lens trump the IQ loss? And do we know how to use the buggers? Just assume that any filter will induce some flare, and aim accordingly. Don't leave the lens hood at home either.

**Tamia** · 05-13-2012, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

... We need to judge the trade-offs of using ANY filter: When does having an extra layer atop the lens trump the IQ loss? ...

Very true. Most of my shooting is done outside, and I carry my camera around my neck, sometimes with the camera tucked into the front of my jacket or field vest to prevent it swaying or being blasted with precipitation/sand/whatever. So, I have always kept a UV filter on my lenses to prevent damage to the front lens element. If nothing else, this has saved me having to clean the lens (always makes me nervous) after shooting in spray and blowing wind. (Even the tiniest droplet of water carries particulate matter which sticks to the glass.) Then one day I slipped on the rocks and fell forward while I was holding my camera in front of me. When I clamored up from the rock, I was swallowing blood (ripped lip) but was more worried about the camera and lens. The filter took all the impact and my lens (Sigma 10-20) was just fine, as was my camera. Here's the filter:

Would the lens have been damaged if I hadn't had the filter on? I think so but of course will never know for sure. The edge of the filter rim smacked onto the rock. If it hadn't been there, the lens rim would have. I wasn't using a hood, it must be said, and that might have helped protect the lens.

I'm not evangelical about UV filters, and there are times when I can imagine leaving one off a lens, but I can't quite bring myself to do that when afield.

lguckert79 · 05-13-2012, 08:02 PM

thank you every one for your replys I have learned that it is trully up to the photographer that if you fell comfortable to not use the UV filter and are not at lets say the beach were sand is not an issue then it is ok not to use them but if you fear that you might drop your camera lets say on a hike in the woods you might want one.Also that with newer dslr's it really serves no purpose to have one on for the anti-UV effect

Marc Sabatella · 05-15-2012, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Tamia

Would the lens have been damaged if I hadn't had the filter on? I think so but of course will never know for sure. The edge of the filter rim smacked onto the rock. If it hadn't been there, the lens rim would have. I wasn't using a hood, it must be said, and that might have helped protect the lens.

Indeed. A hood protects the lens better than a filter in many cases, and actually helps rather than hurts IQ. There are some things a hood won't protect against, though - like the sort of blowing sand and humid salty air you typically find at a beach. So I use UV filters when a hood is insufficient.

05-13-2012, 11:27 AM	#16
jaywes Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: New York, USA Posts: 235	Reading this thread and many of the other threads on this topic still confuses me. There really is a good amount of people on both sides of the argument. I have several filters UV, Skylight, ND & CPL, but not for all my lenses. I really need to do some test to see the IQ differences. I have none so far with my Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I have an upcoming outdoor car event and it maybe a bright sunny day, ND filters required?? Or just go with no filter at all?

05-13-2012, 11:40 AM - 1 Like	#17
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	this is discussed to death in here. in short, when i need a clear protection filter, i will not hesitate to use one (airborne sand, ocean spray, thorns in close ups, petting zoo, etc). When I don't need one, you can bet i leave it off to prevent flaring. They are an essential tool for the astute photographer; don't let anyone try to tell you different.

05-13-2012, 11:54 AM	#18
sjwaldron Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,235	I have multi-coated UV filters on the majority of my lenses. Some lenses like the 10-17mm can't use them and others are old or cheap enough that I don't care. The only advice I will give is never use clear glass or UV filters that have no coating. - You never have to clean the front element of your lens. - You have added protection from drops, tree branches, rain/water/dust, and various other things. - Easy to clean because they are basically flat. - I haven't noticed any image quality issues with decent multi-coated filters. - I will occasionally use the lens without. Usually at night time or when testing a lens. My favorite type is Hoya HMC.

05-13-2012, 12:11 PM	#19
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by mikeSF this is discussed to death in here. in short, when i need a clear protection filter, i will not hesitate to use one (airborne sand, ocean spray, thorns in close ups, petting zoo, etc). When I don't need one, you can bet i leave it off to prevent flaring. They are an essential tool for the astute photographer; don't let anyone try to tell you different. +1 on both counts (talked to death, and essential at times). We need to judge the trade-offs of using ANY filter: When does having an extra layer atop the lens trump the IQ loss? And do we know how to use the buggers? Just assume that any filter will induce some flare, and aim accordingly. Don't leave the lens hood at home either.

05-13-2012, 04:45 PM	#20
Tamia Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Here, there, and everywhere. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,384	Originally posted by RioRico ... We need to judge the trade-offs of using ANY filter: When does having an extra layer atop the lens trump the IQ loss? ... Very true. Most of my shooting is done outside, and I carry my camera around my neck, sometimes with the camera tucked into the front of my jacket or field vest to prevent it swaying or being blasted with precipitation/sand/whatever. So, I have always kept a UV filter on my lenses to prevent damage to the front lens element. If nothing else, this has saved me having to clean the lens (always makes me nervous) after shooting in spray and blowing wind. (Even the tiniest droplet of water carries particulate matter which sticks to the glass.) Then one day I slipped on the rocks and fell forward while I was holding my camera in front of me. When I clamored up from the rock, I was swallowing blood (ripped lip) but was more worried about the camera and lens. The filter took all the impact and my lens (Sigma 10-20) was just fine, as was my camera. Here's the filter: Would the lens have been damaged if I hadn't had the filter on? I think so but of course will never know for sure. The edge of the filter rim smacked onto the rock. If it hadn't been there, the lens rim would have. I wasn't using a hood, it must be said, and that might have helped protect the lens. I'm not evangelical about UV filters, and there are times when I can imagine leaving one off a lens, but I can't quite bring myself to do that when afield.

05-13-2012, 08:02 PM	#21
lguckert79 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 601 Original Poster	thank you every one for your replys I have learned that it is trully up to the photographer that if you fell comfortable to not use the UV filter and are not at lets say the beach were sand is not an issue then it is ok not to use them but if you fear that you might drop your camera lets say on a hike in the woods you might want one.Also that with newer dslr's it really serves no purpose to have one on for the anti-UV effect

05-15-2012, 11:41 AM	#22
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Tamia Would the lens have been damaged if I hadn't had the filter on? I think so but of course will never know for sure. The edge of the filter rim smacked onto the rock. If it hadn't been there, the lens rim would have. I wasn't using a hood, it must be said, and that might have helped protect the lens. Indeed. A hood protects the lens better than a filter in many cases, and actually helps rather than hurts IQ. There are some things a hood won't protect against, though - like the sort of blowing sand and humid salty air you typically find at a beach. So I use UV filters when a hood is insufficient.