UV filters, do I really need one?

**TopherTheME** · 10-17-2011, 02:18 PM

It seems I've opened up a bit of a can of worms here. I'll definetly be skipping the UV filter unless I'm shooting in some place that has a lot of salt for flying sand. Or under those conditions I'll just use the kit lens. Thanks for the replies.

calsan · 10-17-2011, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

This is excessively paranoid thinking and can pretty much be discounted as such.

From Karen Nakamura on Repairing and Maintaining Classic Cameras:

Quote:

Cleaning is the main way lenses are damaged. I've seen many, many lenses with "cleaning marks" and comparatively few with actual impact or abrasion damage. Cleaning damages lenses. Most people would be better off if they never cleaned their lenses - hence the popularity of "protective" UV filters that never come off.

Repairing and Maintaining Classic Cameras - Photoethnography.com's Classic Camera DB

**Spodeworld** · 10-19-2011, 05:16 AM

I use them because I want to protect my lenses. If something hits or splatters on my UV filter, that hurts, but nowhere near as painful as it would be if it happened to the lens itself. I find that Hoya HMC UV filters work very well, are very well regarded and can be found reasonably priced on eBay. BTW, Hoya Super HMC spec a bit higher, and cost 2x as much as non-Super HMC filters, but from what I have read, in practice there really isn't a noticeable difference.

DaveHolmes · 10-19-2011, 08:42 AM

I'm pro-filter use...
Kids and my own clumseyness...
Scratch and replace a £50 filter or scratch and replace a £300+ lens... No contest...

Most peoples (including my own) eyes will not see any IQ loss using a good quallity filter on a good quallity lens...

I recomment a hood as well...
And if using a poloriser the UV comes off but when the poloriser comes off the UV goes back on...

Best
Dave

**TomB_tx** · 10-19-2011, 08:54 AM

Regarding Nakamura's comment on cleaning marks - when shopping for used lenses I always look for lenses with UVa filter attached, as they are less likely to be scratched from cleaning. However, in my own use I remove them for critical work.

RioRico · 10-21-2011, 01:08 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by TomB_tx

Regarding Nakamura's comment on cleaning marks - when shopping for used lenses I always look for lenses with UVa filter attached, as they are less likely to be scratched from cleaning. However, in my own use I remove them for critical work.

When looking at used lenses, I'm very wary of those that look like they've worn the same filter for a long long time. Fungal infections aren't rare. And auction lenses pictured with filters are too often hiding the lens objective condition. I include filters instead of lens caps with the lenses I sell because caps are worth more to me, but I always do product shots WITHOUT the filters so that the actual glass can be seen.

I've been at this for a long long time. I use filters when needed and skip them otherwise. UV filters ARE NOT NEEDED as filters on digicams. Clear optical glass has its use, in mucky situations. CPL and ND and spectrum-slicing filters have their place. UV filters don't.

mysticcowboy · 10-23-2011, 01:35 PM

Whether or not to use a protective filter depends a lot on how you shoot. Doing street or event photography, you need to be able to catch a shot right now. In that case a UV filter has real advantages over a lens cap (not using one or the other is more risk than I'm willing to take.) I've even seen professional news photographers bring a capped camera up to their eye, only to swear as they missed a shot.

Another scenario where a filter is preferable to a cap is if you keep your camera in a bag and remove it often. Again, it's easy to miss a shot if you have to remove your lens cap first.

Water, especially salt water, dust and wind can all gunk up your lens, so there are good reasons to use a UV filter.

It's relatively cheap insurance. And a quality filter won't degrade lens performance, certainly not any you could see on an APS sensor camera. I might buy that argument for a 645, but not for anything with smaller sensor or negative. However, if you don't often shoot in any of the above scenarios, one may be a waste of money. I wouldn't buy one for a kit lens or a specialty lens that I don't use often. I do use one on my walk-around lens.

**Schraubstock** · 10-23-2011, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by calsan

From Karen Nakamura on Repairing and Maintaining Classic Cameras:

Repairing and Maintaining Classic Cameras - Photoethnography.com's Classic Camera DB

Here is my lens cleaning tip: Try to stay away from sandpaper, (however fine) steel wool or potsarrers. The above comments by Karen Nakamura suggests that all of these and probably then some were used - and you think I am joking.

If you use only dedicated lens cleaning implements and liquids (and use you brain) you will encounter no problems.

In the last 40 or so years I have used my camera equipment in the most diabolical places (except the moon) and all my lenses have survived (including the glass) without the ever fearful and much quoted scratches. In fact merchants of fear just love the word scratch. (Including camera sales staff). Just have a look at all the sensor cleaning posts here.

Greetings

10-19-2011, 05:16 AM	#18
Spodeworld Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New Joisey Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,370	I use them because I want to protect my lenses. If something hits or splatters on my UV filter, that hurts, but nowhere near as painful as it would be if it happened to the lens itself. I find that Hoya HMC UV filters work very well, are very well regarded and can be found reasonably priced on eBay. BTW, Hoya Super HMC spec a bit higher, and cost 2x as much as non-Super HMC filters, but from what I have read, in practice there really isn't a noticeable difference. Last edited by Spodeworld; 10-19-2011 at 06:25 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Trade: My 77mm filters for your 72mm filters (CONUS)	loveisageless	Sold Items	0	10-02-2010 12:29 AM
To use UV filters or Not to use UV filters?HELP NEEDED	Softsoap	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	02-20-2010 04:50 PM
Filters	MariesMeow	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	02-15-2010 03:27 AM

10-17-2011, 02:18 PM	#16
TopherTheME Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Rochester, MI Posts: 147 Original Poster	It seems I've opened up a bit of a can of worms here. I'll definetly be skipping the UV filter unless I'm shooting in some place that has a lot of salt for flying sand. Or under those conditions I'll just use the kit lens. Thanks for the replies.

10-17-2011, 07:04 PM	#17
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,549	Originally posted by Wheatfield This is excessively paranoid thinking and can pretty much be discounted as such. From Karen Nakamura on Repairing and Maintaining Classic Cameras: Quote: Cleaning is the main way lenses are damaged. I've seen many, many lenses with "cleaning marks" and comparatively few with actual impact or abrasion damage. Cleaning damages lenses. Most people would be better off if they never cleaned their lenses - hence the popularity of "protective" UV filters that never come off. Repairing and Maintaining Classic Cameras - Photoethnography.com's Classic Camera DB

10-19-2011, 08:42 AM	#19
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	I'm pro-filter use... Kids and my own clumseyness... Scratch and replace a £50 filter or scratch and replace a £300+ lens... No contest... Most peoples (including my own) eyes will not see any IQ loss using a good quallity filter on a good quallity lens... I recomment a hood as well... And if using a poloriser the UV comes off but when the poloriser comes off the UV goes back on... Best Dave

10-19-2011, 08:54 AM	#20
TomB_tx Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,446	Regarding Nakamura's comment on cleaning marks - when shopping for used lenses I always look for lenses with UVa filter attached, as they are less likely to be scratched from cleaning. However, in my own use I remove them for critical work.

10-21-2011, 01:08 PM - 1 Like	#21
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by TomB_tx Regarding Nakamura's comment on cleaning marks - when shopping for used lenses I always look for lenses with UVa filter attached, as they are less likely to be scratched from cleaning. However, in my own use I remove them for critical work. When looking at used lenses, I'm very wary of those that look like they've worn the same filter for a long long time. Fungal infections aren't rare. And auction lenses pictured with filters are too often hiding the lens objective condition. I include filters instead of lens caps with the lenses I sell because caps are worth more to me, but I always do product shots WITHOUT the filters so that the actual glass can be seen. I've been at this for a long long time. I use filters when needed and skip them otherwise. UV filters ARE NOT NEEDED as filters on digicams. Clear optical glass has its use, in mucky situations. CPL and ND and spectrum-slicing filters have their place. UV filters don't.

10-23-2011, 01:35 PM	#22
mysticcowboy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: port townsend, wa Photos: Albums Posts: 968	Whether or not to use a protective filter depends a lot on how you shoot. Doing street or event photography, you need to be able to catch a shot right now. In that case a UV filter has real advantages over a lens cap (not using one or the other is more risk than I'm willing to take.) I've even seen professional news photographers bring a capped camera up to their eye, only to swear as they missed a shot. Another scenario where a filter is preferable to a cap is if you keep your camera in a bag and remove it often. Again, it's easy to miss a shot if you have to remove your lens cap first. Water, especially salt water, dust and wind can all gunk up your lens, so there are good reasons to use a UV filter. It's relatively cheap insurance. And a quality filter won't degrade lens performance, certainly not any you could see on an APS sensor camera. I might buy that argument for a 645, but not for anything with smaller sensor or negative. However, if you don't often shoot in any of the above scenarios, one may be a waste of money. I wouldn't buy one for a kit lens or a specialty lens that I don't use often. I do use one on my walk-around lens.

10-23-2011, 10:08 PM	#23
Schraubstock Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,386	Originally posted by calsan From Karen Nakamura on Repairing and Maintaining Classic Cameras: Repairing and Maintaining Classic Cameras - Photoethnography.com's Classic Camera DB Here is my lens cleaning tip: Try to stay away from sandpaper, (however fine) steel wool or potsarrers. The above comments by Karen Nakamura suggests that all of these and probably then some were used - and you think I am joking. If you use only dedicated lens cleaning implements and liquids (and use you brain) you will encounter no problems. In the last 40 or so years I have used my camera equipment in the most diabolical places (except the moon) and all my lenses have survived (including the glass) without the ever fearful and much quoted scratches. In fact merchants of fear just love the word scratch. (Including camera sales staff). Just have a look at all the sensor cleaning posts here. Greetings