Do you install a UV filter on all of your lens

Fenwoodian · 06-30-2019, 04:46 PM

.
For years, I've bought, tested, and sold lots of lenses. I've bought many with bad front elements, that likely would have been pristine had the owner kept a protect filter on them. Some were bad enough that I replaced the front element on the lens.

Currently, I've got 3 expensive adapted lenses (each about $2,000). You better believe that they've each got both the best protect filter and a metal hood on them.

For my dozens of cheap lenses... I can afford to loose/destroy them; so I don't bother putting on an expensive lens protect filter.

So, it really all boils down to, "what can you afford to loose?"

normhead · 06-30-2019, 04:52 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the UV filter not to keep the UV from blowing out the sky, making it a deeper blue?

**rogerstg** · 06-30-2019, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the UV filter not to keep the UV from blowing out the sky, making it a deeper blue?

You're right, but my understanding is that the DSLR sensor incorporates UV filtration, so no additional filter is needed on the front of the lens.

tibbitts · 06-30-2019, 09:37 PM

I'm guessing many SLR lenses in the film era had some degree of UV filtration built-in. It was advertised as a feature of the Topcon leaf-shutter SLR (Auto 100 and Unirex in the U.S.) lenses in the 1960s.

**Alex645** · 06-30-2019, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by MarkJerling

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

Originally posted by normhead

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the UV filter not to keep the UV from blowing out the sky, making it a deeper blue?

Originally posted by tibbitts

I'm guessing many SLR lenses in the film era had some degree of UV filtration built-in. It was advertised as a feature of the Topcon leaf-shutter SLR (Auto 100 and Unirex in the U.S.) lenses in the 1960s.

For color, a polarizer is usually the best for bluer skies. With film, the UV gives me better contrast and darker grey tones with black and white.

It should also be noted that plain glass blocks 98-99% of UVB (affects skin tanning or skin damage) whereas it only block about 25% of UVA (near the visible spectrum that affects exposures in film). Multicoated glass would reduce this further but a UV filter would cut 80-99% of the UVA.

For digital, I'd recommend a multicoated clear filter for protection purposes if needed, as UV does not affect the sensor, but you will lose a few percent of light transmission with a UV filter.

Astro-Baby · 07-01-2019, 02:13 PM - **1 Like**

Yep, use them but I am only talking film camera lenses. Its an old habit and save the lens from getting a smack and being damaged. Cheaper to replace a filter than a lens. I take them off for critical shots sometimes.
Only use them on the better glass where a bump may be costly. Like most old timers I was raised to be frugal and to look after stuff.

**Rondec** · 07-02-2019, 03:18 AM

I don't use them on the majority of my lenses. My wife did purchase high quality ones (B & W) for the zooms she uses for wedding photography. The issue is mainly being able to clean the front element of the lens quickly without worrying about scratching it. Any serious impact probably wouldn't just damage the UV filter, but the lens itself as well.

My experience is that with cheap filters they add major flare issues and they just need to come off if shooting strong light sources. Top end filters don't have this issue, but they are quite expensive -- talking 80 dollars for a B & W 82 mm multicoated UV filter like we have on the DFA 24-70.

**TedH42** · 07-02-2019, 11:02 AM - **1 Like**

No, almost always. I certainly use them as protection against blowing sand and salt water spray. Places like the beach. Sensors already have UV-IR cutoff filtering, and I've noticed little effect with a UV filter, except with my full-spectrum K-5. I suppose clear "protection filters" are adequate for my standard usage.

lesmore49 · 07-02-2019, 11:35 AM

I install a clear filter, sometimes a UV filter on some of my lenses. Mostly for protection. If I'm using a filter, I always use a top quality filter, mostly B&H. No point using a poor filter over an excellent lens, is there. But some I don't some lenses I can't install a filter...so I don't worry about it. I've experimented a bit...filter-less and with filter with some of my lenses. I can't tell the difference, but then I use quality filter, when I do use them.

I recently installed a B&H filter onto the GH-3 Adapter for my Ricoh GR ll. Reason is some experience dust getting on the sensor. I haven't yet...touch wood...but I thought I would attempt to lessen the likelihood of this happening by installing the adapter and filter over the lens. We will see.

I tested before and after and as before, can't see the difference. With the Ricoh GR ll, I'm using a B+W filter. I also use an old screw mount 49mm metal Ashai Pentax lens cap to cover the adapter/filter. It's a little worse for wear, but adds 'character' to the new camera.

I did drop my K10D a few feet with a B+W filter on the lens. The camera fell hitting the edge of the lens. Thankfully both camera and lens were ok, but the B+W filter absorbed the hit and although the glass was ok, the metal part of the filter had a bit of a scrunch. I was a lucky guy.

**wtlwdwgn** · 07-02-2019, 11:43 AM

I am old school so yes I still use filters to protect the front element. Back in the day I used Skylight filters but today I use UV because they're relatively inexpensive. They can cause unwanted effects like refractions and reflections so probably best not to use them at night. Just my ¢¢.

tibbitts · 07-02-2019, 05:20 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Alex645

For color, a polarizer is usually the best for bluer skies. With film, the UV gives me better contrast and darker grey tones with black and white.

It should also be noted that plain glass blocks 98-99% of UVB (affects skin tanning or skin damage) whereas it only block about 25% of UVA (near the visible spectrum that affects exposures in film). Multicoated glass would reduce this further but a UV filter would cut 80-99% of the UVA.

For digital, I'd recommend a multicoated clear filter for protection purposes if needed, as UV does not affect the sensor, but you will lose a few percent of light transmission with a UV filter.

LensRentals addressed this here, but didn't seem to find a pattern of more or less transmission for clear vs. UV filters:

Lens Rentals | Blog

**Oktyabr** · 07-04-2019, 05:48 PM - **1 Like**

For street photography on a smallish prime? Probably not. But most of my photography is shot outdoors, in the rainy Pacific Northwest, often on the beach with sea spray and blowing sand. Not only is a UV filter cheap and easy to replace, should it come to that, but it's also FAR easier to clean, especially if all I need is a quick wipe to get water droplets off for the next shot.

MarkJerling · 07-04-2019, 06:37 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Oktyabr

For street photography on a smallish prime? Probably not. But most of my photography is shot outdoors, in the rainy Pacific Northwest, often on the beach with sea spray and blowing sand. Not only is a UV filter cheap and easy to replace, should it come to that, but it's also FAR easier to clean, especially if all I need is a quick wipe to get water droplets off for the next shot.

Yup. 100%!

**fs999** · 07-05-2019, 02:40 AM

Never !

totsmuyco · 07-05-2019, 03:36 AM

I use them for protection. I would have had my lens scratched last Holy Week 2016 if I didn't have it on. A curious child who was about 5 years old pricked my lens with a barbecue stick. I think the kid scratch my filter but not my lens. Thanks for the filter.

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	04-12-2024 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

06-30-2019, 04:46 PM	#46
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,875	. For years, I've bought, tested, and sold lots of lenses. I've bought many with bad front elements, that likely would have been pristine had the owner kept a protect filter on them. Some were bad enough that I replaced the front element on the lens. Currently, I've got 3 expensive adapted lenses (each about $2,000). You better believe that they've each got both the best protect filter and a metal hood on them. For my dozens of cheap lenses... I can afford to loose/destroy them; so I don't bother putting on an expensive lens protect filter. So, it really all boils down to, "what can you afford to loose?"

06-30-2019, 04:52 PM	#47
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the UV filter not to keep the UV from blowing out the sky, making it a deeper blue?

06-30-2019, 05:21 PM	#48
rogerstg Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 1,168	Originally posted by normhead Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the UV filter not to keep the UV from blowing out the sky, making it a deeper blue? You're right, but my understanding is that the DSLR sensor incorporates UV filtration, so no additional filter is needed on the front of the lens.

06-30-2019, 09:37 PM	#49
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	I'm guessing many SLR lenses in the film era had some degree of UV filtration built-in. It was advertised as a feature of the Topcon leaf-shutter SLR (Auto 100 and Unirex in the U.S.) lenses in the 1960s.

06-30-2019, 10:07 PM	#50
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,527	Originally posted by MarkJerling Yes always, but I do remove it for some shots. Originally posted by normhead Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the UV filter not to keep the UV from blowing out the sky, making it a deeper blue? Originally posted by tibbitts I'm guessing many SLR lenses in the film era had some degree of UV filtration built-in. It was advertised as a feature of the Topcon leaf-shutter SLR (Auto 100 and Unirex in the U.S.) lenses in the 1960s. For color, a polarizer is usually the best for bluer skies. With film, the UV gives me better contrast and darker grey tones with black and white. It should also be noted that plain glass blocks 98-99% of UVB (affects skin tanning or skin damage) whereas it only block about 25% of UVA (near the visible spectrum that affects exposures in film). Multicoated glass would reduce this further but a UV filter would cut 80-99% of the UVA. For digital, I'd recommend a multicoated clear filter for protection purposes if needed, as UV does not affect the sensor, but you will lose a few percent of light transmission with a UV filter.

07-01-2019, 02:13 PM - 1 Like	#51
Astro-Baby Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2018 Location: Reigate, Surrey Posts: 764	Yep, use them but I am only talking film camera lenses. Its an old habit and save the lens from getting a smack and being damaged. Cheaper to replace a filter than a lens. I take them off for critical shots sometimes. Only use them on the better glass where a bump may be costly. Like most old timers I was raised to be frugal and to look after stuff.

07-02-2019, 03:18 AM	#52
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	I don't use them on the majority of my lenses. My wife did purchase high quality ones (B & W) for the zooms she uses for wedding photography. The issue is mainly being able to clean the front element of the lens quickly without worrying about scratching it. Any serious impact probably wouldn't just damage the UV filter, but the lens itself as well. My experience is that with cheap filters they add major flare issues and they just need to come off if shooting strong light sources. Top end filters don't have this issue, but they are quite expensive -- talking 80 dollars for a B & W 82 mm multicoated UV filter like we have on the DFA 24-70.

07-02-2019, 11:02 AM - 1 Like	#53
TedH42 F/8 & Somewhere Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Colorado Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,412	No, almost always. I certainly use them as protection against blowing sand and salt water spray. Places like the beach. Sensors already have UV-IR cutoff filtering, and I've noticed little effect with a UV filter, except with my full-spectrum K-5. I suppose clear "protection filters" are adequate for my standard usage.

07-02-2019, 11:35 AM	#54
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	I install a clear filter, sometimes a UV filter on some of my lenses. Mostly for protection. If I'm using a filter, I always use a top quality filter, mostly B&H. No point using a poor filter over an excellent lens, is there. But some I don't some lenses I can't install a filter...so I don't worry about it. I've experimented a bit...filter-less and with filter with some of my lenses. I can't tell the difference, but then I use quality filter, when I do use them. I recently installed a B&H filter onto the GH-3 Adapter for my Ricoh GR ll. Reason is some experience dust getting on the sensor. I haven't yet...touch wood...but I thought I would attempt to lessen the likelihood of this happening by installing the adapter and filter over the lens. We will see. I tested before and after and as before, can't see the difference. With the Ricoh GR ll, I'm using a B+W filter. I also use an old screw mount 49mm metal Ashai Pentax lens cap to cover the adapter/filter. It's a little worse for wear, but adds 'character' to the new camera. I did drop my K10D a few feet with a B+W filter on the lens. The camera fell hitting the edge of the lens. Thankfully both camera and lens were ok, but the B+W filter absorbed the hit and although the glass was ok, the metal part of the filter had a bit of a scrunch. I was a lucky guy.

07-02-2019, 11:43 AM	#55
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,851	I am old school so yes I still use filters to protect the front element. Back in the day I used Skylight filters but today I use UV because they're relatively inexpensive. They can cause unwanted effects like refractions and reflections so probably best not to use them at night. Just my ¢¢.

07-02-2019, 05:20 PM - 1 Like	#56
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	Originally posted by Alex645 For color, a polarizer is usually the best for bluer skies. With film, the UV gives me better contrast and darker grey tones with black and white. It should also be noted that plain glass blocks 98-99% of UVB (affects skin tanning or skin damage) whereas it only block about 25% of UVA (near the visible spectrum that affects exposures in film). Multicoated glass would reduce this further but a UV filter would cut 80-99% of the UVA. For digital, I'd recommend a multicoated clear filter for protection purposes if needed, as UV does not affect the sensor, but you will lose a few percent of light transmission with a UV filter. LensRentals addressed this here, but didn't seem to find a pattern of more or less transmission for clear vs. UV filters: Lens Rentals \| Blog

07-04-2019, 05:48 PM - 1 Like	#57
Oktyabr Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 389	For street photography on a smallish prime? Probably not. But most of my photography is shot outdoors, in the rainy Pacific Northwest, often on the beach with sea spray and blowing sand. Not only is a UV filter cheap and easy to replace, should it come to that, but it's also FAR easier to clean, especially if all I need is a quick wipe to get water droplets off for the next shot.

07-04-2019, 06:37 PM - 1 Like	#58
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,422	Originally posted by Oktyabr For street photography on a smallish prime? Probably not. But most of my photography is shot outdoors, in the rainy Pacific Northwest, often on the beach with sea spray and blowing sand. Not only is a UV filter cheap and easy to replace, should it come to that, but it's also FAR easier to clean, especially if all I need is a quick wipe to get water droplets off for the next shot. Yup. 100%!

07-05-2019, 02:40 AM	#59
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,646	Never !

07-05-2019, 03:36 AM	#60
totsmuyco Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Iloilo City Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,276	I use them for protection. I would have had my lens scratched last Holy Week 2016 if I didn't have it on. A curious child who was about 5 years old pricked my lens with a barbecue stick. I think the kid scratch my filter but not my lens. Thanks for the filter.