Do you shoot with protection?

[ilya]

What's the general consensus on UV filters - do you leave them on all of the time (for protection), when would you advise not wearing one ;)

[lightandlife]

I can speak only for myself. I leave it on all the time to protect the lens.

Lenses see more than human eyes, which see only the seven colors of the rainbow (Between red and violet is about one octave, doubling herz). If lenses see more than what the naked eye can see, they will only blur the pics. With lenses that enhance UV, the camera may even show what we do not usually see.

With an Infrared filter, the lenses may not see certain things, like fog, and that would render clear pictures sometimes. With a filter that enhances infrared vision (so we can see infrared), we can take pics of nocturnal activities. I am stretching my logic here, and others will correct me if I am wrong.

[robertwgross]

Lenses don't really "see" anything. It is the sensor that "sees" the image. The lens just passes it through. Nearly all digital cameras that I am aware of have a UV filter over the sensor.

Therefore, what are you doing with the UV filter on the front of the lens?
(1) You get a little UV protection going to the other sensors in the camera, but they probably don't need it.
(2) You get a lot of scratch protection to the main lens.
(3) You have a potential liability if you are using a wide angle lens and a bit of the filter ring is visible, which would cause vignetting (darkening around the outside).
(4) If the UV filter is not perfectly clean, you might get additional lens flare from the sun.

---Bob Gross---

[ssim]

Always go protected!!

My UV filters stay on my lenses all the time. This is more for protection of the lens itself than anything else.

[mjordan]

I use to always have a filter on my lens, but I took them off several years ago and haven't used any since... well I did use a polorizer once, but that was a fluke.

The reason is that a filter degrades the image to some exent. I noticed the difference, both indoors with controlled lighting and outdoors in daylight after I took them off. And the more I use L glass the more I want my images to be as sharp as they can be. And I take pictures in all kinds of conditions, including dusty fields with dogs herding sheep and cattle, which stirs up a lot of dirt and dust.

But I do always use a lens shade. Even under studio conditions. The lens shade does a good job of protecting my lenses as well as shading the lens.


So no, I don't use filters for protection or UV.

Mike

[Vegas Poboy]

Always go with a UV for protection, there is no filter factor so you won't lose any stops. It saved me $300.00 on a lens that hit hard enough to crack the filter but left the lens un touched. That was a cheap lens think about if it was a Canon L lens.

[gudac]

Under the advise of some friends that are Pros I have been using UV filters on every lens, but have learned from others on the net that some lenses funtion better without any filters.

On my Canon 75 - 300 IS lens I have been using it the past month without any filters and have noticed it performs much better focusing and the end results have been much cleaner and sharper pictures.

I can honestly say that a UV filter saved my 28 -135Is that I bumped against a stone wall that scratched the filter, but didn't damage the lens.

Pros and Cons to everything!

[Joytek]

I do a LOT of night shots with street lighting and found that if I leave the uv filter on there are usually strange reflections in the fotos. So for night shots I take the filter off but for all my day shots I leave it on as a protection for the lens (from scratches, dust, grease etc. ). It is less nerve wracking cleaning a filter with your t-shirt out in the field (after it got messed with some gooey stuff dripping fom a tree for example :-) , rather than cleaning your 1500$ L lens. I always try to avoid cleaning the lens as much as possible.

w.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I always have an UV filter on the lens.
Sometimes it's rather ridicilous, I bought a $ 500,00 second hand lens (worth arround $ 1100,00) and the UV filter was a staggering $ 100,00.
But on the other hand I would hate to scratch my lens.

Greetings,
Frank

[lightandlife]

robertwgross wrote:
Lenses don't really "see" anything. It is the sensor that "sees" the image. The lens just passes it through. Nearly all digital cameras that I am aware of have a UV filter over the sensor.

---Bob Gross---

Oh, yeah! Our eyes don't really "see" anything. It is the brain that "sees" the image. The naked eye just passes the light through. Some eyes also wear a UV filter, sunglasses.

[neil_r]

I use filters for protection, however there is little point putting a cheap filter in front of L glass. I use Hoya Super HMC PRO-1 UV 1876 filters and can detect no difference in the finished photograph either with or without the filter. So the protection is good and there is no loss of quality, but then again the filters aint cheap.

Neil

[Webster]

My take on this is like my take on most such issues. I adjust what I do depending on the situation. I usually have a UV filter on the lens for protection. I know me well enough to know that I will not always be sufficiently careful of the lens, and there have been several times when the filter has taken a beating and been replaced. On the other hand, when I'm going for maximun sharpness, and almost always when using a tripod, the filter comes off. Any time I've done a test with and without the filter, I've been able to see the difference it makes.

[robertwgross]

lightandlife wrote:
Oh, yeah! Our eyes don't really "see" anything. It is the brain that "sees" the image. The naked eye just passes the light through. Some eyes also wear a UV filter, sunglasses.

A naked eye is made of living tissue which can be harmed by UV, so that is why you wear sunglasses. Last time I checked, Canon was no longer making its lenses out of living tissue, so the lens is not harmed by UV.

---Bob Gross---

[Webster]

And the analog to the lens is not the eye, but the lens of the eye.

[ilya]

Thanks all

Note to self -

- Buy a more expensive filter for my L lens, and not the other way around as I have it now ...

- Go bare on the important shots ;)

- Keep it on most of the time otherwise

[lightandlife]

webster wrote:
And the analog to the lens is not the eye, but the lens of the eye.

Eye IS the lens, a multipurpose zoom lens.

If eyes "see" an object, they would see its upside down image. But if you see it the right side up, it is your brain that processes and presents it correctly.

[ilya]

ilya wrote:
Thanks all

Note to self -

- Buy a more expensive filter for my L lens, and not the other way around as I have it now ...

- Go bare on the important shots ;)

- Keep it on most of the time otherwise



Side note - buy some cool sunglasses

[mapdealer]

Yes, have your lens wear protection. Always wear protection. You don't want your lens glass to get a STD (seriously threatening ding) :)

[danphoto1]

I use a uv most of the time but for important shots I will ocassionally take it off.

[Littlebike]

I wont let a lens leave the store without a filter. Often I will ask them to clean both the leanse and filter before putting it on thus getting the cleanest combination possible.

As for viginetting (seeing the filter in the picture) the 1.6 multiplier pretty much assures that will never happen.