[Class A]

At several places PF advocates the use of UV filters to block "harmful UV rays" that "ruin colors in your photographs".

I was under the assumption that DSLR cameras obviate the need for UV filters and that their only remaining function is to give the front lens element some protection. However, for the latter purpose, there are cheaper clear glass protection filters.

So is there any substance to the claim that UV rays are harmful and/or ruin colours, given that were not talking about film cameras here?

[Wheatfield]

There has never been a whole lot of truth to the concept of UV filters doing any good at all, but there is far less truth to it now than there would have been 30 or so years ago when they started being flogged by camera stores who found them to be an easy sell that made a huge profit.
I haven't had a UV or "protective" filter on a lens for over 30 years, and I have yet to damage a lens or ruin a picture from this refusal to use them.

[Ash]

UV filters provide no benefit photographically - the UV 'protective' feature is quite redundant since minimal UV rays actually enter the lens even at midday (unless camera points right into the sun). The photo descriptions of 'haze-eliminiation' by UV filters are not substantiated in real life images, they're a marketing ploy.

There have been lots of threads about the utility of UV filters and the general consensus is that it comes down to personal preference, which says to me that there is no advantage to using them other than protecting the front glass from physical elements such as finger smudges, seaspray, dust, sand, etc...

But then again, the whole reason for the SP coating on Pentax lenses is to make it easy to clean the front element from things like water splashes and dust.

[Class A]

There has never been a whole lot of truth to the concept of UV filters doing any good at all, but there is far less truth to it now than there would have been 30 or so years ago when they started being flogged by camera stores who found them to be an easy sell that made a huge profit.

I can relate to that. I once had a store experience where the owner almost would not let me leave without having sold an expensive UV filter. I was a noob and he spread so much FUD that I almost bought it on the spot. Good to have principles, such as always go to the internet and check brands/prices before buying something in store on a spur.

I haven't had a UV or "protective" filter on a lens for over 30 years, and I have yet to damage a lens or ruin a picture from this refusal to use them.

And perhaps you saved yourself from ruining some images by using a filter. Cheap ones can cause nasty ghost reflections and even the expensive ones aren't completely free from this.

[Class A]

UV filters provide no benefit photographically - the UV 'protective' feature is quite redundant since minimal UV rays actually enter the lens even at midday (unless camera points right into the sun).

I would have thought that in the film days they weren't useless. Film was sensitive to UV rays in a way that could accentuate "blue haze" in some circumstances, wasn't it?

Regarding the digital age, however, it is also my understanding that if anything the use of a UV filter would be to get lens protection but there are dedicated, cheaper protection filters for this.

[Wheatfield]

And perhaps you saved yourself from ruining some images by using a filter. Cheap ones can cause nasty ghost reflections and even the expensive ones aren't completely free from this.

My A*600/5.6 came with a huge Tamron UV filter on the front of it. I had kinda, sorta, almost decided that maybe I'd leave the filter on it since the lens had cost me a couple of months pay, so the first time I used the lens, I had the UV filter on it.
Even with the relatively low resolution istD I couldn't get a sharp picture off of that lens so I took the filter off and it was night and day.
That filter now sits in my wife's ornament cabinet with a little Rottweiler statuette sitting on it.

[tibbitts]

I think the image quality issue is something you should check for yourself because it will vary with the exact equipment involved. Usually, when I've tested, I can't detect any difference - for better, or worse. I do take my (uncoated) uv filters off when a point light source is in the image, or when shooting in any situation where flare is likely.

Paul

[rhodopsin]

Use a hood instead of filter for protection.

UV filters DO help with excessive UV at high altitudes. Next time you are there, watch the exposure meter change when UV filter is added or removed.

UV filters DO reduce atmospheric haze in some situations, such as long-distance telephoto -- the 'haze' in this case is invisible to the eye, but shows on film and in images, i.e. film and sensor are sensitive to UV, showing atmospheric haze the eye does not see.

[Ash]

You're right Class A - I ignored the film aspect of UV effects, but as rhodopsin notes it's of negligible effect at sea level, but does make a difference at mountain tops.

[Digitalis]

AFIK borosilicate glass which is typically used in camera lenses is one of the worst transmitters of UV light so IMO UV cut filters are basically useless, I only use them to protect my lenses from dirt rain and dust. To do serious UV photography quartz or fluoride lenses were the weapon of choice and silicon isn't really all that sensitive to UV in the first place. as I recall there was a Pentax ultra-apochromat 85mm f/4.5 takumar* that was designed for UV and infrared because it could focus both frequencies of light at the same plane as visible light ( anyone ever owned one?)

* from a technical standpoint this lens was actually a superachromat.

[jolepp]

In case a filter is used for protection (stays on all the time) it would seem worthwhile to have a multicoated one and it seems that uv-filters are the cheapest widely available ones? (maybe because glass in general tends to filter uv :-) While the image sensor isn't affected by UV like film there might be still be an issue with metering and/or AF sensors?

[kkoether]

I've quit using any filters other than the occasionnal circular polarizer when I want to eliminate glare on water etc. My pictures seem much better without the filters. All I need now is a deeper hood for my 70-300mm zoom.

[Spock]

I use uv filters only as lens protection. I've never been under any illusion that an extra layer of glass can somehow improve IQ.

To minimise any adverse effect on IQ I now only use Hoya Super HMC filters - these have a multi coating on both sides that is practically as good as Pentax's SMC.

There are so few reflections off the Super HMC filters that sometimes when I hold a filter in my hand it looks like there is no glass in the filter ring.

The benefit of filters is they are a lot cheaper to replace than the front element of a lens. With some of my older/and or more prized lenses I'd hate to get a mark or scratch on the front element.

[gofour3]

AFIK borosilicate glass which is typically used in camera lenses is one of the worst transmitters of UV light so IMO UV cut filters are basically useless, I only use them to protect my lenses from dirt rain and dust. To do serious UV photography quartz or fluoride lenses were the weapon of choice and silicon isn't really all that sensitive to UV in the first place. as I recall there was a Pentax ultra-apochromat 85mm f/4.5 takumar* that was designed for UV and infrared because it could focus both frequencies of light at the same plane as visible light ( anyone ever owned one?)

* from a technical standpoint this lens was actually a superachromat.

There were two Takumar Ultra-Achromatic lenses:

- 85mm f/4.5
- 300mm f/5.6

The 85mm had no glass and used fluorite and quartz elements. The 300mm used glass and fluorite elements.

Nope never seen one in person, just on paper.

Phil.

[lon_ton_sai_vat]

I use UV filters as len protections. The IQ still good as it was.