[dazman]

HI,

I've just read through dozens of posts about filter/protectors, but wasn't able to find an answer to this question:

Which is better?
A UV filter (Hoya Pro1 Digital Filter or B+W as an example)
OR
a Protector (Hoya Pro1 Digital protector or B+W for example)

The main purpose is for protection. Do I gain anything from having UV? Do either or both have a negative effect on my IQ? I will always being using a hood.

Daz

[pschlute]

If you always use a hood (which you should), then dont bother with a "protector"

When was the last time you hit the front element of a lens ?

[mithrandir]

Digital camera sensors use colored filters to distinguish the color of the light coming into the camera. UV radiation is destructive to these filters -- fading them over time. Common sense says that in harsh light situations, you should protect the sensor filters using either a uv filter or alternately shading them from direct exposure with a hood. A simple protector does neither. A UV filter probably offers a little more protection since it filters direct and indirect uv rays.

[séamuis]

if you are going to use something to protect your front lens element (other than a hood) then it will be very worth your while to go ahead and get a UV, there are no negatives to using a UV and unlike a simple protector as stated above the UV will give you the benefit of protection for your sensor (as well as your eyes when looking through the viewfinder) I say go UV. I use a Hoya HMC UV(0) on all of my lenses. it also keeps your front lens element from getting dirty and needing to be cleaned. the only time I don't use a UV is when im using a PL-CIR.

[SpecialK]

A good filter/no filter thread...

Filter recommendation - Digital Camera Resource Page - Forums

[Ben_Edict]

A UV-(protection)-filter does not serve any purpose except mechanically protecting the front element of the lens. A digital protection filter (clear) does exactly the same.

There is no need for both of them, if you use a lens hood and unless you're photographing in very harsh conditions (salt water spray during beach shoots, snowdrift, sand storms etc.). Indeed any filter will affect image quality negatively and thus should only be used, if really required.

I cannot quite understand, in which way a UV-filter would protect the glass in front of the sensor from fading? Any lens mounted onto the camera will do exactly this. If you use a 13-element zoom lens an additional 14th glass element (aka. the filter) will not add any additional protection. It is no coincidence, that you have to pay a premium to actually buy a lens, that transmits UV light! (Look at the UltraAchromatic UV Takumar or similar offerings from Nikon.)

Also, dyed glass (aka the sensor/Bayer filters) will not fade during the lifetime of the camera. UV filters were used in the long and distant past, when lens coatings where often single coatings (and many lenses were not fully coated at all), because then a coated UV filter could cut down the stray UV light, which otherwise lead to a contrast loss, especially with bw films - but nowadays (especially with digital cameras), these filters are really obsolete.

Ben

[user440]

I have a slight thread-jack, feel free to move if it is far enough off topic.

One of my lens' have a metal hood which is capable of using a filter (threads). For ease of installation / removal, I would like to be able to put a polarizing filter on the end of the hood rather than in between the lens and the hood.

What if any negative effect would this have?

Thanks!

[simonkit]

I'm pretty sure that digital cameras/sensors are hardly effected by UV. I previously permanently used a UV for lens protection but have recently had a rethink, I now only use it when in hazardous environments (coastal/dusty). As many say additional glass infront of the lens will inevitably cause some IQ degredation - as to whether this will be obvious or not within your shots I can't say for sure

simon

[Buddha Jones]

I put a Hoya Pro1 Digital UV Filter on all of my lenses. I have never hit a front element and I hope that I never do, but if I ever did it sure costs less to replace a filter than an element. And there is no noticeable loss in IQ. In short, there are no negatives to having a filter on it, so why not have a little extra insurance. On average they cost about 5% of what the lens cost so it is a well worth investment IMO.

[Tom S.]

I'm with Buddha - I use UV filters on all my lenses (except my fisheye). Not only for protection against my clumsiness, but also for cleaning purposes.

[Ash]

Yep. All mine (except FE) are UV filter fitted too.
Splashes of water are my most common impostor.
Having an extra layer of glass means there's an extra film where dust can accumulate.
Frequent dusting means you have a protected front element with negligible loss of IQ.

[Ben_Edict]

The problem with filters is, that all cheap filters are not optically polished, but "flame poilshed", which means, the final surface, after cutting the filter slices, is only heated, until the rough edges melt down. That leaves an undulating surface, which is very detrimental to image quality. Only a few manufacturers mechanically polish their filter surfaces to the same standard, as lenses are polished: B+W, Heliopan, Hoya (and therefor Kenko) in their top-range Pro Digital series. It might be, that (some) Tiffen filters are also mechanically polished, but I don't know for sure.

So, a really top-quality filter costs a sizeable amount of money, because it is expensive to produce. Which could mean, that one single front element damaged over a couple of years is quite cheaper, than buying all those protective filters…

I gave up on such filters long ago (despite using Heliopan almost exclusively), because rigid lens hoods offer mechanically enough protection for my purposes. Only when shooting on the beach in windy conditions, I add a protective filter, to prevent the salt spray from damaging the lens coating.

Ben

[creampuff]

Digital camera sensors use colored filters to distinguish the color of the light coming into the camera. UV radiation is destructive to these filters -- fading them over time. Common sense says that in harsh light situations, you should protect the sensor filters using either a uv filter or alternately shading them from direct exposure with a hood. A simple protector does neither. A UV filter probably offers a little more protection since it filters direct and indirect uv rays.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your view.
First, I'm not sure where you have obtained information that the colored filters that separate color information at the sensor fades over time. There is no evidence of this.

Second, the sensor is for the most part not exposed directly as there is a mirror to direct light into the viewfinder. When an exposure is taken, the duration of exposure is usually in fractions of a second. The sensor would be exposed even longer directly when cleaning the sensor or when under service/repair.

Obviously a filter adds another piece of glass and therefore the chance for internal reflections and flare goes up, hence the need to buy good multi-coated ones. I've been in a sandstorm, in dusty environments and just recently had salt water accidently splashed on a lens on a boat trip. Had I not had a filter in place, it would not have provided a barrier to shield the lens against. A hood merely offers some measure of physical protection in addition to cutting out extraneous light at an angle.