[UncleVanya]

The only time I use a UV filter is around the ocean with a lot of salt spray or in very sandy and windy areas. Sand and salt propelled by wind can destroy smooth glass surfaces.

Now that’s a use case I would support.

[simsburyphoto]

I have had good luck with either UV or Clear Protector B&W filters

[Alex645]

Using UV or protection filters is an oft debated topic with no resolution.

Agreed but you will get some resolution. The question is how much loss in resolution?

[Serkevan]

While hiking or traveling I always put a filter on any walkaround lenses - much easier to clean the inevitable smut from the filter than from the front element, and far less dangerous if you're half as clumsy as I am . Haven't really noticed any resolution loss so far...

The exceptions are the M20/4 (I've managed to photograph my fingers holding the camera - of course it's gonna vignette with anything you screw there ) and on my longer lenses I don't put filters because they tend to have deep hoods and they only come out when they are needed, so less risk.

[35mmfilmfan]

As others have said, I have a UV filter mounted on my lenses, but only used in adverse weather conditions. Normally I unscrew it, along with the associated lens cap, and pop it in a plastic self-seal bag in my pocket. On the rare occasions I have shot through them, I have noticed no adverse effect on my images - but now I'll be looking for it !

[BigMackCam]

While hiking or traveling I always put a filter on any walkaround lenses - much easier to clean the inevitable smut from the filter than from the front element, and far less dangerous if you're half as clumsy as I am . Haven't really noticed any resolution loss so far...

The exceptions are the M20/4 (I've managed to photograph my fingers holding the camera - of course it's gonna vignette with anything you screw there ) and on my longer lenses I don't put filters because they tend to have deep hoods and they only come out when they are needed, so less risk.

When I first joined these forums - and for a good few years after that - I fitted UV filters to every lens I owned, for exactly the reason you mention... cleaning in the field. On particularly wet and windy days, I've been known to use a shirt cuff or handkerchief to wipe the filter free of rainwater, sea-spray and/or grime

A couple of incidents made me a lot more selective about using them, though...

The first was a similar experience to Sandy Hancock @Paul the Sunman; where I found some of my photos had strange diagonal line artefacts in the bokeh, and in some cases the character of the bokeh changed (it was busier - less smooth - than expected). I thought it was only happening at long focal lengths, but looking back at my photos and posts, it appeared on some of my DA70 Limited shots too. I narrowed the problem down to a Kenko filter, and that led to me testing all of my filters, discarding any that produced obvious artefacts. **

For a time after that, I would leave UV filters on my lenses "just in case", but remove them prior to shooting when conditions were fine.

The second incident was an indoor shoot with my little Q7, where I subsequently found that a large number of the photos I took had nasty ghosting artefacts due to reflections from ceiling lights, exacerbated by the filter on the lens - which I'd forgotten to remove

After that, I took the filters off almost every lens I own.

If I'm going out to shoot in a location that warrants it (down at the beach, for example) or in variable weather (especially windy and/or wet), I'll fit a filter to any lenses I'm taking with me. I still like the peace of mind and convenience of cleaning in the field, and I'm prepared to accept a very small impact on image quality in return, in those situations. Otherwise, I shoot without them.

--

** On wider angle, normal and short tele lenses, I see no discernable impact on resolution and bokeh when using Hoya HMC UV(c) filters. I can see a difference at longer tele focal lengths if I compare side-by-side, but it's really marginal... Almost like the difference between shooting with and without the AA simulator, only not quite so pronounced.

[stevejo]

Thanks for those comments. I only use the good multi coated versions and always use a lens hood if I have a filter on. I think the Hoya multi coated filters started appearing in the 70s and commanded quite a high price if I remember right.

[BigMackCam]

Thanks for those comments. I only use the good multi coated versions and always use a lens hood if I have a filter on. I think the Hoya multi coated filters started appearing in the 70s and commanded quite a high price if I remember right.

The Hoya HMC UV(0) model is the one to go for, if you can find it... but it's typically more expensive than the far-more-common UV(c), which relies entirely on coatings for the UV reduction. Still, I find the UV(c) perfectly adequate for my purposes, with no nasty artefacts. I can't remember what I paid for mine, but I think they were around GBP £10 - £15 each (maybe a little more for the larger diameters). Unfortunately, there are often quite a few fakes on eBay at temptingly low prices Caveat emptor...

[Serkevan]

If I'm going out to shoot in a location that warrants it (down at the beach, for example) or in variable weather (especially windy and/or wet), I'll fit a filter to any lenses I'm taking with me. I still like the peace of mind and convenience of cleaning in the field, and I'm prepared to accept a very small impact on image quality in return, in those situations. Otherwise, I shoot without them.


** On wider angle, normal and short tele lenses, I see no discernable impact on resolution and bokeh when using Hoya HMC UV(c) filters. I can see a difference at longer tele focal lengths if I compare side-by-side; but it's marginal... Almost like the difference between shooting with and without the AA simulator, only not quite so pronounced.

Nowadays I mostly use a CPL for the 28-105 which is the main walkaround lens, so it's a wholly different story. The couple UVs in more or less "active use" are a Hama and Hoya HMC (One sits on either the F50/1.7 or the M135/3.5 and the other on the Tamron 90/2.5 macro which doesn't have a hood). I haven't seen any artifact that wouldn't have been present regardless, methinks... but I'll have to pay more attention

[Denver]

Using a UV filter is a personal choice. Here in the west, Colorado, etc, we shoot under windy conditions. The wind frequently has high levels of particulates especially sand. So I prefer to protect my front lens element from this abrasive wind. It's cheaper to replace the filter than the lens. So if your environmental conditions have potential adverse effects on your lens front element a clear or UV filter is warranted.

[m42man]

The oft-linked article:

UV filters test - Introduction - LensTip.com

A useful shootout - including measurements of light transmission and UV-blocking for a selection of UV filters. A bit non-current, but useful nevertheless.

A filter is good insurance, but counter-productive if there is visible image degradation. To avoid that, go for a good brand (Hoya, Marumi, B+W), and make sure it's multicoated - though even the best coatings won't prevent flare in worst-case conditions, like night scenes with bright lights (in which case, temporarily remove the filter - and hope there's no salt spray!).

Image degradation will be visible only in second-rate filters (which are depressingly numerous), so get one of the above brands, and make sure it's not a counterfeit (filters are relatively easy to counterfeit, and the rewards are a big attraction). So, buy from a reputable dealer!

[Sandy Hancock]

The first was a similar experience to @Sandy Hancock; where I found some of my photos had strange diagonal line artefacts in the bokeh, and in some cases the character of the bokeh changed (it was busier - less smooth - than expected).

I'm not sure which experience you're referring to, but for what it's worth, I stopped using UV or protective filters several years ago. The only one I own is the little drop-in filter for the DFA645 25/4.0.

[BigMackCam]

I'm not sure which experience you're referring to, but for what it's worth, I stopped using UV or protective filters several years ago. The only one I own is the little drop-in filter for the DFA645 25/4.0.

My apologies, Sandy... I thought it was you, but 'twas in fact Paul the Sunman I've edited my previous post...

[Ronald Oakes]

Generally a UV filter serves no purpose on digital. If you want the filter as lens protection rather than UV light modification as used on film then get a good quality, multi-coated protection filter.

I have never used UV or protection filters and personally do not feel they serve any purpose. However, if they make you feel more confident about your lenses' safety good quality ones don't do significant harm in most situations.

Using UV or protection filters is an oft debated topic with no resolution. I think it best to do whatever you feel comfortable with.

Bingo! When buying used equipment the first thing I do is toss the UV filter

[UncleVanya]

Thanks for those comments. I only use the good multi coated versions and always use a lens hood if I have a filter on. I think the Hoya multi coated filters started appearing in the 70s and commanded quite a high price if I remember right.

My dad worked for EPOI, Canon, was the sales lead for a camera store, and Pentax. Hoya was the lower cost option for most of us in the 70s and 80s but they weren’t bad. I had a lot of Nikon filters myself which were perceived as higher quality but likely were just good and price inflated.