[robert52]

Hi I guess its a hold over from the old film days I always put a UV filter on my lens basical lens protection ( saved me more than once) . I was just wondering how many people ut there do the same or not? thanks

[MetalUndivided]

UVs serve no point other than protection and if a lens has a hood, I don't bother.

[MarkJerling]

Yes always, but I do remove it for some shots.

[kypfer]

A UV filter is only potentially necessary in the event of the image being unduly affected by any UV light that manages to make it's way through the lens. With modern multi-element lenses this is less likely than with a legacy triplet, for example.


I invariably have a lens-hood fitted. For me this gives as much extra physical protection as I feel I need, provides valuable protection from flare-inducing out-of-image sidelight and it doesn't introduce a potentially image-degrading piece of glass to the optical system.


Just my tuppence worth ... YMMV

[Alex645]

Yes always, but I do remove it for some shots.

+1 with Mark here. And instead of a UV, I use a multicoated clear filter.....but again for general protection, but taken off when I can be careful and want the best optical quality from the lens.

[biz-engineer]

I tend not to use protection anymore, for a few reasons:
- all my Pentax apsc glass was protected, I sold it in mint (no scratch whatsoever), but the selling price was based on market price , not based on my lenses being "like new" condition
- lenses are now built plastic and rubber, when the front element coating will show signs of wear, chances are the body of the lens will have suffered as well
- as I've seen in the last couple of years, digital technology changes faster and faster, price of used equipment goes down no matter how good the condition is
- lens optics and digital sensor are designed to be used without UV filters, and filters can induce flare, lower quality IQ
- unlike film, digital sensors already have filter layers that block UV light, adding an UV filter isn't necessary
- resale value of UV filter is... zero, when I tried to sell my bunch of 49, 52, 67mm UV filter used on apsc glass, the buyer considered it as junk

[Papa_Joe]

I had to vote for "its the 21st century" as it was the nearest option to "didn't make sense in the 1980s allready".
I had a UV filter on every lens then. When using them on my DSLR I took of the filters and the IQ was signifcantly better for every lens without the filter.


You might also have a look at this thread: Which protection filter? - PentaxForums.com

---

Last edited by Papa_Joe; 06-25-2019 at 12:45 AM.

[BigMackCam]

I have UV filters for each of my lenses. Whether I fit them or not depends on the weather and environment. If its a calm, dry day, I don't fit them. If it's wet and windy - or I'm in an environment where my gear is likely to get dirty - I'll fit them, as I like to be able to clean or dry the front of the lens as required without worrying about grit, sand or other debris.

[tokyoscape]

Only if I am in somewhere with a lot of small sand flying in the air, beach for example.
Other than that, hood and hand all the way. I feel like if anything hit the front part hard enough to break the filter, my front glass won’t survive anyway.

[35mmfilmfan]

I use them, but only keep them on if weather conditions dictate (wet, windy on a beach etc), otherwise they get treated as a transparent screw-in lens cap. Easier and safer to clean than lens element, and cheaper to replace too.

[pepperberry farm]

never - I have a stack of them here if anybody wants 'em....

[joergens.mi]

Typically no. Modern coatings are good enough in normal cases.

if I'm in a hard environment desert with wind, at the ocean with wind and sand. In a heavy duty factory (metal / glas melting, welding and things like that) I take an uv filter to protect the front lens from accidental mechanical damage

[biz-engineer]

Use of front filter is very related to the cleaning method employed to clean the front element of a lens. Usually, unless sticking finger on the front element or exposure to rain drops, the front element only get dust, and removing dust only require a soft brush unlikely to alter coating. The bad way of cleaning the front element is to rub a wet cloth on the front element without removing dust with a brush, doing so will scratch coatings over time, if so, it is cheaper to scratch the surface of a UV filter. Anyway, the quality of cleaning method indicates if a UV filter is a useful option or not.

I'm in the "yes, always", camp.

I don't buy equipment with an eye to resale value, but to future usability by myself. So my desire to protect the lens has to do entirely with my ability to take pictures - the filter's a lot cheaper than a new lens, or even lens repair, and you never know what kind of whacko event will result in accidental damage. As the boy scouts used to say, "be prepared". Risk isn't just probability of harm, it's also severity of damage if something bad happens.

I don't buy cheapo filters, like some of those in the stack pictured above. A filter from Sears, Roebuck & Co.??? Really? The ones I get have at least a 98% transmission rate, the two sides are actually parallel, etc.

They do help to cut atmospheric haze. And, especially in the summer, and me in a humid subtropical climate, that comes in handy.

I get the lens clean first, then put the filter on, and they almost never come off. I don't use other filters, hardly at all; an occasional circular polarizer, but that's rare. And if I eventually wear out a filter by cleaning it with my shirt-tail, I can get a new one and still have my lens intact.

Disclaimer: I am also a derivative of the film era, and still take care of stuff as if it were going to have to last the rest of my life - training by my depression-and-WWII-surviving parental units. I haven't quite caught up with the move to disposable everything introduced during the Clinton Administration, when they shipped all our manufacturing capability to China. (I still can't conceive of people buying "smartphone" computerettes for over a thousand bucks, when they'll be obsolete in eight or nine months.) So I expect a camera to last at least ten or twelve years, and the lenses should outlast me. I take care of my stuff as if that were true. "Waste not, want not."

[TaoMaas]

Nope...don't use them. IMHO, it's just another piece of glass to get in the way of delivering your scene to your sensor. However, I use lens hoods religiously...metal, whenever possible...so I've never had any real damage done to the front element of any of my lenses.