Do you install a UV filter on all of your lens

dbs · 07-24-2019, 08:05 PM

Work protocol is to be obeyed

Unregistered User · 07-25-2019, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by pres589

pepperberry, I'd take that stack of filters.

---------- Post added 06-25-19 at 09:06 AM ----------

My favorite trick lately has been a 49mm to 37mm step-down ring with a 37mm UV filter fit inside the ring so that it doesn't protrude. I'm using those on the 50 and 55mm primes on my film cameras. A slip-on lens cap on the outside; the filter and ring act as both a minimal lens hood and a front element protector. Works great for when I don't want to mess with a lens cap and need to get a camera out quickly; the cap stays in the bag until the evening is over.

Sorry, but there's one thing I don't understand; why would you use a reducer with a filter smaller than the objective lens?

TaoMaas · 07-25-2019, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by dbs

Hi Tao

Keep the peace and take them off when you use the lens and replace it when done

Dave

He got out-voted, 2 to 1. No filters. To be honest, it all worked out okay. We got several inexpensive filters that came with some of the gear we'd ordered, so we gave them to the guy who likes to use filters on his lenses. Now everyone's happy. We've all been doing this a LONG time. By far, the biggest danger to our gear has been dust/sand. Filters wouldn't have helped.

**pres589** · 07-25-2019, 09:59 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by dlh

Sorry, but there's one thing I don't understand; why would you use a reducer with a filter smaller than the objective lens?

Acts a bit like a hood, like what's on some of Pentax's DA primes (21, 40, and 70) as well as gives a nice rugged edge/element protector to the lens. It doesn't vignette on the M 50 1.7 wide open (and I think it works just as well on the Super-Tak 55 f2 that I've done this as well) and as far as I can tell the IQ isn't impacted (although know I'm only doing this with film bodies).

I like that I can take the cap off and just shoot and not worry about throwing the camera back into my bag and the front element of the lens isn't in danger of getting scratched. I take the camera and the 50 1.7 with on runs and bike rides in a small backpack. This gives e some peace of mind.

Wheatfield · 07-25-2019, 10:29 AM - **1 Like**

A lens hood is far better protection for the front element, and will actually do something to improve the picture.

---------- Post added Jul 25th, 2019 at 11:47 AM ----------

Originally posted by tibbitts

For those who find filters affect their images in noticeable ways, is the issue primarily resolution or flare? I have had only one filter ever that I could tell affected resolution, and that was dramatic, while many filters have had an effect on flare, but only that I could see under specific circumstances. However my highest resolution body is only 16mp with an AA filter, so maybe this is becoming more of an issue as sensor resolution has increased.

Both, depending on the filter. A lens hood will take care of the flare, and negate the reason for using the protective filter. When I bought my A* 600/5.6 it came with a Tamron UV filter, which is a pretty decent quality filter, on the front. I decided that since I had spent $2.5k for the lens, I would leave it on, breaking my habit of not ever using them.

I couldn't get a sharp picture out of that lens no matter what I did. I had put a Wimberley gimbal onto my Zone VI standard wood tripod for support (close to 20 lbs of tripod/head), and was using mirror lock and keeping shutter speeds out of the range where the camera vibrates, so I figured the lens had a problem.

The problem was the UV filter. I removed it and all of a sudden I had a very, very sharp lens.

johnha · 07-25-2019, 12:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by dlh

Sorry, but there's one thing I don't understand; why would you use a reducer with a filter smaller than the objective lens?

Astrophotographers often use step down rings to reduce the aperture of a lens to create a pure circular aperture thus avoiding the problems of diffraction.

I use filters for protection (as long as they're not very expensive) as they reduce the need to clean the front element. Many lenses are damaged by incorrect or too much cleaning.

jack002 · 07-25-2019, 01:09 PM

My use of UV filters can be summed up as "I am a leaf on the wind"
1975: I bought a film DSLR, added two lenses, I hear somewhere that UV filters help your photos and protect your lenses, I bought and added them to all my lenses
2017: talking with a photographer friend at work about them, he said you don't need them and how every extra piece of glass can degrade your images, so I took them all off. The digital lenses I had with my digital cameras didn't have a filter and I never thought to add it. I don't use any now. No one has ever shown me that either having one or not having one is really a problem or not.
I have started using hoods more now, I didn't use to, no real difference with them that I can see, but the idea of using it makes sense to me, keeping stray sideways light out of the lens, I did see a youtube that demonstrates the difference well.

TerryL · 07-25-2019, 04:50 PM

I use BW Clear Thin on all of mine.

TaoMaas · 07-26-2019, 05:04 AM - **3 Likes**

I've often wondered if a big part of this discussion might boil down to whether a person tends to shoot more frontlit or backlit subjects. Certainly, that's why I stopped using filters. I love the look of backlit things, but I kept getting lens flares whenever I'd include a light source in my shot. Someone suggested that it might be my filter causing the problems, so I took it off. Ta-da...problem solved!

Unregistered User · 09-21-2019, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by luftfluss

Some folks might be interested in this UV filter article: Lens Rentals | Blog

thanks for that link - I note in passing that my favorite, which I've got installed a most of my lenses, is the Chiaro 99-UVBTS. Tested at 99.7 percent transmission rate, while the mfgr.'s claim is that it will pass 99.0 percent of the light. Price noted was a hundred bucks; I paid a little more than that for one to fit on the front of the 560mm, I think it was 112mm. That's what, less than half of one percent of the cost of the lens? And I haven't seen any perceptible difference in image quality at all. Oh, and it's milled on the edge as well as knurled on the outside rim (which is made of brass), so it's really easy to get on and off, and won't stick like aluminum will.

Unregistered User · 09-21-2019, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by johnha

Astrophotographers often use step down rings to reduce the aperture of a lens to create a pure circular aperture thus avoiding the problems of diffraction.

I use filters for protection (as long as they're not very expensive) as they reduce the need to clean the front element. Many lenses are damaged by incorrect or too much cleaning.

Exactly, just like firearms - most gunsmith's repairs are from too much or improper cleaning.

View Poll Results: UV filter on all lens
Yes always	38	27.74%
nah its the 21st century	99	72.26%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 137. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Your vehicle: what do you have, why do you like it, and what do you not like?	Auzzie-Phoenix	General Talk	2980	6 Days Ago 05:06 PM
What are your most used lens and what do you use them for? What lens do you have that	pearsaab	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	55	01-26-2021 03:13 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 16-45mm DA, 67mm UV filter, 58mm UV filter (Worldwide)	treue_photo	Sold Items	6	04-23-2011 01:28 AM
Do you name your lenses like you name your kids????..I do	jackbullet	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	40	08-03-2009 05:28 PM
n00b question: Do you use have a UV filter (at minimum) on all your lenses?	innershell	Photographic Technique	35	08-14-2008 03:37 AM

07-24-2019, 08:05 PM	#76
dbs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Clare Valley S A Photos: Albums Posts: 7,563	Work protocol is to be obeyed

07-25-2019, 03:51 AM	#77
Unregistered User Guest	Originally posted by pres589 pepperberry, I'd take that stack of filters. ---------- Post added 06-25-19 at 09:06 AM ---------- My favorite trick lately has been a 49mm to 37mm step-down ring with a 37mm UV filter fit inside the ring so that it doesn't protrude. I'm using those on the 50 and 55mm primes on my film cameras. A slip-on lens cap on the outside; the filter and ring act as both a minimal lens hood and a front element protector. Works great for when I don't want to mess with a lens cap and need to get a camera out quickly; the cap stays in the bag until the evening is over. Sorry, but there's one thing I don't understand; why would you use a reducer with a filter smaller than the objective lens?

07-25-2019, 04:56 AM	#78
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by dbs Hi Tao Keep the peace and take them off when you use the lens and replace it when done Dave He got out-voted, 2 to 1. No filters. To be honest, it all worked out okay. We got several inexpensive filters that came with some of the gear we'd ordered, so we gave them to the guy who likes to use filters on his lenses. Now everyone's happy. We've all been doing this a LONG time. By far, the biggest danger to our gear has been dust/sand. Filters wouldn't have helped.

07-25-2019, 09:59 AM - 1 Like	#79
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	Originally posted by dlh Sorry, but there's one thing I don't understand; why would you use a reducer with a filter smaller than the objective lens? Acts a bit like a hood, like what's on some of Pentax's DA primes (21, 40, and 70) as well as gives a nice rugged edge/element protector to the lens. It doesn't vignette on the M 50 1.7 wide open (and I think it works just as well on the Super-Tak 55 f2 that I've done this as well) and as far as I can tell the IQ isn't impacted (although know I'm only doing this with film bodies). I like that I can take the cap off and just shoot and not worry about throwing the camera back into my bag and the front element of the lens isn't in danger of getting scratched. I take the camera and the 50 1.7 with on runs and bike rides in a small backpack. This gives e some peace of mind.

07-25-2019, 10:29 AM - 1 Like	#80
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	A lens hood is far better protection for the front element, and will actually do something to improve the picture. ---------- Post added Jul 25th, 2019 at 11:47 AM ---------- Originally posted by tibbitts For those who find filters affect their images in noticeable ways, is the issue primarily resolution or flare? I have had only one filter ever that I could tell affected resolution, and that was dramatic, while many filters have had an effect on flare, but only that I could see under specific circumstances. However my highest resolution body is only 16mp with an AA filter, so maybe this is becoming more of an issue as sensor resolution has increased. Both, depending on the filter. A lens hood will take care of the flare, and negate the reason for using the protective filter. When I bought my A* 600/5.6 it came with a Tamron UV filter, which is a pretty decent quality filter, on the front. I decided that since I had spent $2.5k for the lens, I would leave it on, breaking my habit of not ever using them. I couldn't get a sharp picture out of that lens no matter what I did. I had put a Wimberley gimbal onto my Zone VI standard wood tripod for support (close to 20 lbs of tripod/head), and was using mirror lock and keeping shutter speeds out of the range where the camera vibrates, so I figured the lens had a problem. The problem was the UV filter. I removed it and all of a sudden I had a very, very sharp lens.

07-25-2019, 12:19 PM - 1 Like	#81
johnha Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Lancashire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,155	Originally posted by dlh Sorry, but there's one thing I don't understand; why would you use a reducer with a filter smaller than the objective lens? Astrophotographers often use step down rings to reduce the aperture of a lens to create a pure circular aperture thus avoiding the problems of diffraction. I use filters for protection (as long as they're not very expensive) as they reduce the need to clean the front element. Many lenses are damaged by incorrect or too much cleaning.

07-25-2019, 01:09 PM	#82
jack002 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 727	My use of UV filters can be summed up as "I am a leaf on the wind" 1975: I bought a film DSLR, added two lenses, I hear somewhere that UV filters help your photos and protect your lenses, I bought and added them to all my lenses 2017: talking with a photographer friend at work about them, he said you don't need them and how every extra piece of glass can degrade your images, so I took them all off. The digital lenses I had with my digital cameras didn't have a filter and I never thought to add it. I don't use any now. No one has ever shown me that either having one or not having one is really a problem or not. I have started using hoods more now, I didn't use to, no real difference with them that I can see, but the idea of using it makes sense to me, keeping stray sideways light out of the lens, I did see a youtube that demonstrates the difference well.

07-25-2019, 04:50 PM	#83
TerryL Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 850	I use BW Clear Thin on all of mine.

07-26-2019, 05:04 AM - 3 Likes	#84
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	I've often wondered if a big part of this discussion might boil down to whether a person tends to shoot more frontlit or backlit subjects. Certainly, that's why I stopped using filters. I love the look of backlit things, but I kept getting lens flares whenever I'd include a light source in my shot. Someone suggested that it might be my filter causing the problems, so I took it off. Ta-da...problem solved!

09-21-2019, 05:49 AM	#85
Unregistered User Guest	Originally posted by luftfluss Some folks might be interested in this UV filter article: Lens Rentals \| Blog thanks for that link - I note in passing that my favorite, which I've got installed a most of my lenses, is the Chiaro 99-UVBTS. Tested at 99.7 percent transmission rate, while the mfgr.'s claim is that it will pass 99.0 percent of the light. Price noted was a hundred bucks; I paid a little more than that for one to fit on the front of the 560mm, I think it was 112mm. That's what, less than half of one percent of the cost of the lens? And I haven't seen any perceptible difference in image quality at all. Oh, and it's milled on the edge as well as knurled on the outside rim (which is made of brass), so it's really easy to get on and off, and won't stick like aluminum will.

09-21-2019, 05:50 AM	#86
Unregistered User Guest	Originally posted by johnha Astrophotographers often use step down rings to reduce the aperture of a lens to create a pure circular aperture thus avoiding the problems of diffraction. I use filters for protection (as long as they're not very expensive) as they reduce the need to clean the front element. Many lenses are damaged by incorrect or too much cleaning. Exactly, just like firearms - most gunsmith's repairs are from too much or improper cleaning.