Can I keep a UV filter on my lens full time? even indoor shots??

[AberyClark]

I have a 17-55 and just purchased a Hoya UV filter ($50 mid line Hoya). It says on the box that this can be used full time to also protect the lens as well as the typical UV outdoor application. Can I just leave this thing on indoors and at night??? I'm not a really big filter guy..I have a hood...just curious.....

[Bill Roberts]

UV filters are a pretty thorny subject on here :lol: with some people preferring to leave the filter on unless there's a good reason to take it off, and others with exactly the opposite viewpoint. I'd say yes you can leave it on and it won't hurt anything... but I'm leaving for the door now :lol: :lol:

cheers
Bill

[CoolToolGuy]

I do. The UV doesn't cause any light loss, and it is virtually colorless.

This is a hotly-discussed topic - Some use them, others abhor them.

Have Fun,

[JimAskew]

I have a 17-55 and just purchased a Hoya UV filter ($50 mid line Hoya). It says on the box that this can be used full time to also protect the lens as well as the typical UV outdoor application. Can I just leave this thing on indoors and at night??? I'm not a really big filter guy..I have a hood...just curious.....

I use a B+W MRC on my 17-55 EF-S IS and leave it on at all times. I do this for all my lenses. It is sound insurance in my book.

As others as stated...this is a "hot button" issue here. I advise you to take test shots with and without the UV attached and see if you can find a difference in IQ. I did this and I could not see any. I do buy the best filter I can afford...the B+W MRC 77MM goes for $79.99 and B+H.

[Steiglitz]

After shooting EOS for 12+ years, I just recently joined the camp of no filters on unless required for a particular effect...so I have a drawer filled with 14+ filters....filters can defeat the engineering behind the design of a $1,600 L prime IMHO, but I know many will differ...I do see a "difference"...still the jury is a bit out with me...

[duaflex4]

Can I just leave this thing on indoors and at night...

Sure, your indoor and night photos deserve the same image quality loss as your other shots.

[steved110]

I always have a UV filter on all my lenses, absolutely.

If you do a search on this subject you will find that slightly more than half of us do, and the rest don't. For many reasons, either side is a valid one.

for me the real issue is that it keeps the front of my lens clean - I'm not that bothered about protection because I am extremely protective of my gear against physical bangs and knocks - and I suspect most of us here are like that.

I'd much rather clean a UV filter than the lens' front element.

[AberyClark]

Whta's the difference between a UV and a clear Protector filter?

[tkjaer]

One of the problems with using filters is that your lenses will be much more prone to flaring. I suggest you try it out shooting indoor, and remove the filters if you see flares.

If it's only for protection, I suggest you use your lenshoods instead.

[tkjaer]

Whta's the difference between a UV and a clear Protector filter?

The difference is that the UV filter blocks ultra violet (that's light with a wavelength shorter than violet) light, whereas the clear protector filter doesn't.

[Matt57]

Sure, your indoor and night photos deserve the same image quality loss as your other shots.


LOL :lol:

[duaflex4]

Whta's the difference between a UV and a clear Protector filter?

There was once a time several decades ago when lenses (front element) were not as hard as they are now, neither the glass itself or the coatings. This is why a 'protecting" filter came into vogue. Lenses now, and for many, many years, have been hard enough that the old worries no longer apply. But, like many 'wife's tales' some still are hung up on the no longer applicable rule. Granted, there are times, ie under extraordinary conditions when using a 'protecting' filter is prudent. That is why I have (and carry) an UV filter for each of the lens filter sizes I have, but honestly, I can't recall the last time I felt the need to use one. Also, the coatings used now-a-days blocks UV anyway. Does the use of a filter degrade the image quality? IT HAS TO. Granted, perhaps most pictures taken with a filter in place appear to have no marked picture quality loss for most people, most of the time, with most pictures (and I'm not sure of this, I say it for the sake of argument). None the less, it is another piece of glass (and usually of lower quality than the lens' glass) to add to the equation. I can't, and don't care to, argue the point with those who think differently. At least they have added demand and profits to camera stores and filter manufactures which helps with the economy.

[SkipD]

The people who sell filters make a bundle of profit off them. That's why they continue to preach the need for "protection" of your lens.

I have all my lenses that I have bought since the mid 1960's, and every one of them has pristine glass in them. I have NEVER used a filter for anything but special effects provided by them (colored filters for B&W film, polarizing filters, neutral density filters, etc.). I do, on the other hand, ALWAYS use properly designed (for the individual lenses) rigid lens hoods - any time a lens is out of the camera case. The lens hoods provide protection against stray light and a lot of physical protection as well.

[John_B]

AberyClark,
My suggestion is to put your camera on a tripod or steady surface and take a photo with the filter and one without the filter. If you don't see a difference with the filter then I suggest you leave it on. If you do see a difference with the filter then take it off. Simple right? ???

[Mike R]

The endless debates: UV filters, RAW vs Jpeg, ,Quality of the kit lens. Did I forget any? :lol: At least they are disscussed here without anger,as on other forums. Oh , I forget"how should I spend my money?" I love this place!

[duaflex4]

AberyClark,
My suggestion is to put your camera on a tripod or steady surface and take a photo with the filter and one without the filter. If you don't see a difference with the filter then I suggest you leave it on. If you do see a difference with the filter then take it off. Simple right? ???

Wrong, perhaps the test shot does not show flare, where as the next real shot may.

[JimAskew]

... I forget"how should I spend my money?" ...

Buying UV filters of course ;)

[Bill Roberts]

The endless debates: UV filters, RAW vs Jpeg, ,Quality of the kit lens. Did I forget any? :lol: At least they are disscussed here without anger,as on other forums. Oh , I forget"how should I spend my money?" I love this place!

Yes POTN is one of the few forums where people can have absolutely opposite viewpoints and still remain friends. Sure you get a certain amount of "leg pulling" but rarely do you see the bitchiness so prevalant on some of the other forums. Long may it continue!!

Of course I still prefer to use a filter :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Wilt]

The debate revolves around absolute effects of any additional glass surface in the optical path. The purist will argue that anything effects the picture, so don't use it unless you have to. Yet a good filter transmits 99.7% of the light, so you have to ask can ANYONE see a difference of 0.3% contrast loss ? ? ? And if you cannot see it, is there harm to using it?

There are some situations which challenge filters more, like photos of candle flames against a dark backdrop. Cheaper filters exhibit more flare...transmitting only 93-97% of light and bouncing around the other 3-7% to cause flare. So under those circumstances, it is probably best to remove the filter so as to not handicap yourself unnecessarily, even one which transmits 99.7% of the light.

As for protection, one school ignores any value of cleaning or collision avoidance offered by a filter, saying 'use a hood'. Fine, but if cleaning can abraid the coating on the lens (published results seen, back when microfiber wasn't readily available outside Japan, over a decade ago!), isn't it better to clean a filter and replace it every few years, than to erode your lens coatings on a permanent basis?

Coatings might be tougher (or not) than in the past, but if you cannot tolerate 0.3% contrast loss in a filter, why would it be tolerable to lose 0.3% via lens cleaning :confused: Some wear has to accumulate, no matter how careful you are!

My point is to simply present questions you should ask yourself, and come up with your own answers in deciding if 'protective' filters are or aren't for you. My personal perspective is 'no single answer is right for all situations'.

[TMR Design]

It seem to be a "six of one....." topic, and one that is much debated. Again, preference is wonderful thing, even if there is no basis for it in some cases.

I've adopted the philosophy, after a lot of listening, reading, and processing all the reasons for and against, that I won't just put a filter on for protection in my own studio. Yes, accidents do happen, but they can happen with anything, anytime, and you can't drive yourself crazy over "what if's?" I do use a polarizer for most of my outdoor and daylight shooting and will only use a UV as protection if I'm somewhere that is windy and there is debris in the air. I do use hoods, which in most cases, seems like it would be more protective in the case of bumps, knocks or perhaps a drop.

[duaflex4]

As for protection, one school ignores any value of cleaning...avoidance offered by a filter........if cleaning can abraid the coating on the lens...than to erode your lens coatings on a permanent basis?



Wow! Not tring to be cute here, but, do you (and others) really chemically clean your front element that often? Now, I do use a blower on occasion and/or lightly brush with a crumped up piece of lens tissue, but, chemically clean the lens? I find the need for that very, very rare. Certainly rare enough that it dosen't do harm to the coatings if that type of cleaning, in fact, does cause damage.

[Wilt]

Wow! Not tring to be cute here, but, do you (and others) really chemically clean your front element that often? Now, I do use a blower on occasion and/or lightly brush with a crumped up piece of lens tissue, but, chemically clean the lens? I find the need for that very, very rare. Certainly rare enough that it dosen't do harm to the coatings if that type of cleaning, in fact, does cause damage.

Not personally! But consider this...dry wiping (not brushing) is more abrasive than wet wiping.

Like many people, I try to clean as seldom as possible, but an occasion blow off, fogging with breath, and wiping with microfiber is all it normally takes. But you would be suprised just how much stuff accumulates in air-borne vapors, which is why crystal in china cabinets get fogged over time, so cleaning is called for eventually!

[CoolToolGuy]

Not personally! But consider this...dry wiping (not brushing) is more abrasive than wet wiping.

Like many people, I try to clean as seldom as possible, but an occasion blow off, fogging with breath, and wiping with microfiber is all it normally takes. But you would be suprised just how much stuff accumulates in air-borne vapors, which is why crystal in china cabinets get fogged over time, so cleaning is called for eventually!

How true - and any variety of lens cleaner would be considered a chemical treatment - what a conundrum. . .

But I'll trust that the commercial lens cleaning fluids are formulated such that they don't harm the lens coatings, so I'm not worrying.

I am, however, amazed at the proclamation that the addition of an extra layer of glass "has to" degrade the image - I was not aware that we had so many optical engineers on this forum.

The battle rages on - its like religion.

Have Fun,

[Bill Roberts]

Just because we agree to disagree doesn't mean we don't like arguing about it :lol:

[MeanGreeny]

Some lenses seem to not AF as well if fitted with a UV filter. Before you all shout at me let me say ............. "why should I lie ?" :)

My 70-300 DO IS definitely prefers to 'go commando' i.e. without a UV protective lens, and locks on a lot more reliably without.

I've tried several UV lenses on it varying from frighteningly expensive :shock: to wellllll errrrrrm 'Jessops Own' :o [you won't tell anyone will you ?] with no observable difference.

Maybe this should be the criteria by which you decide ?

[Tapeman]

Never, ever use a filter. Return it at once. They make your lenses go blind.

You can use a coffee filter for white balance in a pinch.

[Glenn NK]

I love this filter/no filter argument. Usually there are only two sides to it, but sometimes you find someone that can actually sit comfortably on the fence.:lol:

Has anyone spotted him yet? A few posts above.

Actually his comments make a good deal of sense. No more hints.