is it Crazy to not use a UV for protection on L glass?

[doubledragon]

I've just bought a 70-200 2.8 L and was wondering - do I really need to put a UV filter on for protection if I plan to use the hood most of the time?

[stathunter]

Personally I use a UV filter and the hood for protection. I was photographing a hockey game the other day-- and walking through the penalty box--and slammed my 70-200 against the metal door--- --there was another photographer there and he said "did you just smash your lens..." I told him yep...no worries it is a Canon (he is a Nikon shooter) ...and then was very thankful that I had the hood on--which took the hit.

[Nukey]

I suppose everyone will have a different opinion, but I would say yes you should! I don't really care about the UV rays, but rather the protection that it offers by physically covering the glass. I don't know how resilient the front element of the lens is, to be honest, but I would hate to scratch, ding, or otherwise damage the lens when it can be protected for a relatively low cost. Even if you keep the hood on most of the time, you never know when an accident might happen.

[ed rader]

I've just bought a 70-200 2.8 L and was wondering - do I really need to put a UV filter on for protection if I plan to use the hood most of the time?


photographers are split on this question and it is a hotly debated issue. my suggestions is to do what is comfortable for you. personally i use UV filters most of the time, but i use good filters.

ed rader

[Jim G]

Do a search and see hordes of posts on this very topic; personally I use a filter if there's risk of some sort of spray onto the front element, otherwise I see it as an unnecessary risk to causing flare or (even slightly) degrading IQ. Good quality filters will have minimal effect but why have one on at all if you don't need to?

They're not going to do much for impact damage reduction, either... if the filter shatters but not the front element that doesn't show that the filter saved the front element, just that the filter was easier to break :p

Hoods FTW. Each to their own, though! If you use a top quality filter I honestly don't think it would make a difference to the majority of your shots.

[neilwood32]

I used to use it all the time but not now.

My reasoning?If im not actively shooting, then the lens cap is on. If I am shooting, I always use a hood therefore protecting the front of the lens body. If something gets inside the hood and i have a filter on, then there is a very high probability that the filter will smash and in doing so scratch my lens. So i'm as safe or safer without the filter - just making sure i use the lens cap when not shooting.

[Jon]

Protective Filter FAQ (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=368177)

[Amamba]

Ditto here. Used to, not anymore. There's bound to be at least some IQ degradation from filter, and a scratch on the filter is more likely than on lens front element. Would I rather have IQ issues upfront ? I have a 10 yr old lens that was a POS to start with and that was dropped so hard at one point that the chunk of plastic got literally ground off the front barrel; it was laying in a drawer for a while, and I am pretty positive that my kids got their little sticky hands on it at some point; it has developed a bit of misfocusing problem (front or back, I've never tested); it still produces OK photos when manually focused, and it has no scratches on front element.

[timnosenzo]

photographers are split on this question and it is a hotly debated issue. my suggestions is to do what is comfortable for you. personally i use UV filters most of the time, but i use good filters.

ed rader

Agreed! And I do the same. :)

[Bill Roberts]

It is a hotly debated issue, and one that I doubt we're ever going to come to agreement on. Personally I figure that you can always take a filter off if you need to, but it's too late to put one on once you've scratched the lens. Other people see it differently. But really it's down to you. If you do use one always use top quality filters (B+W or Heliopan or the top end Hoya) as there really is a difference. And also always use a lens hood as it can often provide more protection than the filter against impact damage.

[Mutombo]

I've got B+W UV filters on my two most expensive pieces of glass, and I always use a hood. On some of my more inexpensive glass, I don't bother with the filter.

I do it for piece of mind. I'd hate to scratch the front element of my glass, so I keep it covered. I have not noticed any IQ degradation.

[Familiaphoto]

Its not crazy not to use a filter and its not crazy to use a filter. As said above there is a lot of debate on this issue. One thing is true, if you use a filter use a good one or you will see a drop in image quality when you use a filter.

[SkipD]

I've just bought a 70-200 2.8 L and was wondering - do I really need to put a UV filter on for protection if I plan to use the hood most of the time?I don't even own a UV filter and all my lenses - those from the 1960's and my "L" lenses that I've had a few years - all have glass that is in pristine condition.

Make sure that you always use the manufacturer's recommended lens hood whenever a lens is out of the case. The hood will improve images by blocking stray light that might cause flares and, additionally, will provide significant mechanical protection for the lens.

[Mike R]

I always shoot with my hood in place, indoors or out, There are plenty of things that can damage a lens. I would rather have the hood hit something than the lens

[bohdank]

I still have all my Minolta gear from the 70's-80's and the lenses all look fine. They've been to Europe, North Africa and a lot of other places over the decades. Never used a filter and continue no to today but as others have said, do what you feel comfortable with.

I always use a hood and replace the lenscap when convenient.

[Clevor]

Isn't there a link somewhere to somebody who did some tests on the image quality/resolution with/without filters? I mean if the image quality/sharpness isn't significantly degraded, it's a no brainer.

The only problem is there are a lot of lens filters out there so it would be time consuming testing all the different brands and models. I believe I saw somewhere that the Hoya MC filter did very well.

[Naturalist]

I shoot hood on all the time and never a filter. I want nothing to potentially interfere with my image.

[Jon]

I shoot hood on all the time and never a filter. I want nothing to potentially interfere with my image.
Ya mean like this?
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=177214&d=1180591256

Yeah, I use a filter. There's a limit to what hoods can keep out.

[SuzyView]

Great shot, Jon!

Hood is just okay for that. I didn't know filters were for goat protection. :)

[Jon]

Also dog, horse, cat, child (especially with peanut butter or icing). Also twigs/branches in the woods, and FOD protection in prop-wash or jet wash. IOW, all my favourite shooting environments.

[skygod44]

Ya mean like this?
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=177214&d=1180591256

Yeah, I use a filter. There's a limit to what hoods can keep out.

+1 for exactly this type of occurance.

Me? Lens hood plus protector filter (v.high quality).

I'm forever having to tell my kids, and other people's kids NOT to touch the glass in my 100-400. The last thing I want on my front element is freshly picked bogey (booger)!!!!!!!!

BUT, if you're NEVER going to be in this situation, it's up to you...although I still think salt-spray, mist, airbourne crap such as pollen, flying grit, drops of sweat or anything really, are better off hitting an easily replaceable filter than a lens element.

[gale]

I have hoya pro-1 filters and just got a b+w mrc filter because I read that they're easier to keep clean than the hoya. It's true that the hoya filters are a pain to clean.

[jacuff]

+1 for exactly this type of occurance.

Ok, now that looks like the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Since the lens hood is on, you can't tell what focal length it is zoomed to. At 24mm the front element would be even closer to the goat than at 70mm. Either way, the lens can't focus that close, so you probably won't be finding yourself in that situation too often. As it gets too close, you'd be more inclined to pull back.

Now if you were shooting with the 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, you could get that close, but AFAIK, there isn't a UV filter that works with that lens. So what do you do?

[skygod44]

Ok, now that looks like the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Since the lens hood is on, you can't tell what focal length it is zoomed to. At 24mm the front element would be even closer to the goat than at 70mm. Either way, the lens can't focus that close, so you probably won't be finding yourself in that situation too often. As it gets too close, you'd be more inclined to pull back.

Now if you were shooting with the 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, you could get that close, but AFAIK, there isn't a UV filter that works with that lens. So what do you do?

True enough, but it's surprising how one moment a cute fluffy creature is in focus and you're waiting for the "opportune moment", then, it turns, and is out of focus exactly because it's suddenly become very interested in you. And, being OOF, you can misjudge the blur, and hey presto! you've got a snout up inside yer hood!!!

Even a glance at the viewfinder display can be too long. Or you can not imagine that the beasty will be so brave, so don't move quick enough.

Either way, filters are on all my lenses, at the very least, to keep any other crap off my front element. I'm not a pro, and I don't pixel peep, so the tiny risk of a tiny decrease in IQ at 100% really doesn't cause me to lose sleep at night....but the chance of having to replace a lens....?

:confused:

Think I need a drink!!!!!!!!!!

[Ukuleleman]

Most people who recommend using a filter for protection quote the 'Slammed my camera into a metal post' scenario, or something similar.

With the cost of gear nowadays I have to treat my stuff as what it is, fragile and highly sensitive to impact and I don't consider a sliver of cheap glass any kind of protection.

My best advice is to keep a strap around your neck at all times and a lens cover on the lens when you're not shoooting.

[Michael]

I used to use only the best Hoya filters on my L series lenses. I haven't used one on any of them for ages now and I have no problems with just using the hood for protection.

[jacuff]

Most people who recommend using a filter for protection quote the 'Slammed my camera into a metal post' scenario, or something similar.


Most of these people also aren't shooting with lenses that can't take a filter for protection or the cost of such a filter is extremely high. Wait until they get something like the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye or any of the super telephoto primes (except the 400mm f/5.6). Maybe then, their opinion on the necessity of a filter for protection will change.

[Mark]

Do a search and see hordes of posts on this very topic; personally I use a filter if there's risk of some sort of spray onto the front element, otherwise I see it as an unnecessary risk to causing flare or (even slightly) degrading IQ. Good quality filters will have minimal effect but why have one on at all if you don't need to?

They're not going to do much for impact damage reduction, either... if the filter shatters but not the front element that doesn't show that the filter saved the front element, just that the filter was easier to break :p

Hoods FTW. Each to their own, though! If you use a top quality filter I honestly don't think it would make a difference to the majority of your shots.
I'm with you, I don't use filters unless it will rain/get wet, and if it will rain/get wet/dirty or whatever, I will put on a filter so I can wipe it of if it does get wet..... Always use hoods..... If you drop a lens and the filter cracks, then you run the risk of scratching your glass with the shards of the filter :), It is very very hard to crack the front element, and very hard to scratch it (but of course glass will scratch it, and rocks, not much else I know of (not metal))....

Also with that goat, I would notice pretty quick that I can't focus and automatically move back when it goes OOF... I always do that, even when shooting sports.... lol it's like a reaction...

A guy I know doesn't use filters, and is pretty rough on his gear (he is a pro), never scratched a lens, despite one having a chunk of the filter ring missing, and stuff like that.....

[SuzyView]

I'm not as adventurous as Jon or others, but I do use a clear filter in windy conditions and such. I like using filters outdoors and I don't find them hurting my IQ.

[pressureworld]

I've got B+W UV filters on my two most expensive pieces of glass, and I always use a hood. On some of my more inexpensive glass, I don't bother with the filter.

I do it for piece of mind. I'd hate to scratch the front element of my glass, so I keep it covered. I have not noticed any IQ degradation.
I agree totally, if I drop a grand on a lens, I want to make sure the front element is fine.

[Sparkz]

Ok, here's my opinion. First of all, the lens hood is a great piece of protection from bangs, bumps, slams etc., but they don't do much for other dangers such as ...... salt spray if you are at the beach, same for flying sand and dust which can scratch your glass. It's much safer to clean a $100 filter than to risk scratching the front element of your $1600 lens!! I always use the UV filters. You'll never even notice them UNLESS you're shooting directly into the sun. Just my opinion.

[photoguy6405]

Many who use filters for glass protection, but I once ended up with scratches on the lens glass because a protective filter shattered. Never would have happened without a filter. Sometimes you just can't win.

[Clevor]

I have hoya pro-1 filters and just got a b+w mrc filter because I read that they're easier to keep clean than the hoya. It's true that the hoya filters are a pain to clean.

A bit off topic here, but what do you mean about the Hoya? I know the one I received seemed to have small oil spots on it out of the box, so I tried to clean it with a Zeiss lens pad (alcohol) and it was hard to get rid of the streaking. Is that what you mean?

I ended up returning the filter for replacement.

[neilwood32]

Ok, here's my opinion. First of all, the lens hood is a great piece of protection from bangs, bumps, slams etc., but they don't do much for other dangers such as ...... salt spray if you are at the beach, same for flying sand and dust which can scratch your glass. It's much safer to clean a $100 filter than to risk scratching the front element of your $1600 lens!! I always use the UV filters. You'll never even notice them UNLESS you're shooting directly into the sun. Just my opinion.

If i was shooting in extreme conditions like salt spray at the sea, i would probably consider using one on that occassion.

I certainly wouldnt trust one as protection for my lens. Trust 0.5-1mm of cheap glass to protect a lens element that costs way more than it?I would rather trust myself to take greater care than trust the filter.

If you are getting flying sand and dust, then i would suggest you have bigger problems to worry about than your lens getting dirty! I reckon it would take a considerable wind speed to drive sand/dust at such a pace that it would grind your lens to a noticeable extent.

Oh and with regards to the goat licking the lens, surely your short of minimum focus distance at that point? :lol:

[JJD.Photography]

I feel better knowing the glass on my $2,000 lens is not exposed. The B&W filter was installed as soon as the glass was removed from the box. Has not come off since. I also use the hood 100% of the time this lens is mounted.

[sinitry23]

I always use a good filter on all my lenses.

[gale]

A bit off topic here, but what do you mean about the Hoya? I know the one I received seemed to have small oil spots on it out of the box, so I tried to clean it with a Zeiss lens pad (alcohol) and it was hard to get rid of the streaking. Is that what you mean?

I ended up returning the filter for replacement.Yes they streak IME and it's hard to get the streaks off. I haven't had to clean the b+h one yet so I don't have a comparison.

[argyle]

Well, you gotta hand it to the camera dealers...they've done well over the years to promulgate the notion that you must use a filter for "protection". And why wouldn't they...the profit margin on filters and other accessories is so ridiculously high that they'd be foolish not to. Unfortunately, many shooters have fallen for that line over the years and now buying a protection filter has become almost "automatic" for many. I can't tell you how many times that I've been asked/told by a dealer "You'll probably want a protective filter with that lens, right?"

Basically, I'll use one when the shooting conditions warrant the need, such as windy/dusty/wet conditions. Other than that, none. If a shot calls for my using a CPL, I sure don't want to fiddle with removing a UV, stowing it, and then attaching the CPL (and repeating the reverse when finished)...too much of a PITA when you're out and about on trails, and it does present the potential for dropping and breaking a filter. It would cost me quite a bit of money to "protect" every one of my lenses...I just don't feel that the risk is all that great. Sure, accidents happen, but the likelihood of catastrophic damage is very low. For me, its cheaper to replace the front element of a lens than to outfit every one of my lenses with a quality filter...I just balance the level of risk with the cost of prevention.

Others mention the cleaning factor, as in "its much easier to clean a filter than a lens". I never really understood that argument either. The cleaning process is basically the same, whether one is cleaning a filter or a lens...as long as proper care is taken, no damage will result and your gear will be just fine.

I guess the bottom line is if using a protection filter gives you the "warm fuzzies", then by all means continue to do what makes you comfortable. I base my practices on real-life results after nearly 35 years of shooting, in which I have yet to damage a lens that wasn't filtered 100% of the time.

[Bill Roberts]

Thanks for the laugh argyle! No, genuinely, no sarcasm at all. It was the "warm fuzzies" bit that did it :lol: I really did LOL!

It sounds like we've been at this game for a similar kind of time, (40 years or so) and we're NEVER going to agree on the filter issue in a million years. But it really doesn't matter at all.

May I wish you and everyone else on here a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


cheers

[sandpiper]

Well, you gotta hand it to the camera dealers...they've done well over the years to promulgate the notion that you must use a filter for "protection". And why wouldn't they...the profit margin on filters and other accessories is so ridiculously high that they'd be foolish not to. Unfortunately, many shooters have fallen for that line over the years and now buying a protection filter has become almost "automatic" for many. I can't tell you how many times that I've been asked/told by a dealer "You'll probably want a protective filter with that lens, right?"

Basically, I'll use one when the shooting conditions warrant the need, such as windy/dusty/wet conditions. Other than that, none. If a shot calls for my using a CPL, I sure don't want to fiddle with removing a UV, stowing it, and then attaching the CPL (and repeating the reverse when finished)...too much of a PITA when you're out and about on trails, and it does present the potential for dropping and breaking a filter. It would cost me quite a bit of money to "protect" every one of my lenses...I just don't feel that the risk is all that great. Sure, accidents happen, but the likelihood of catastrophic damage is very low. For me, its cheaper to replace the front element of a lens than to outfit every one of my lenses with a quality filter...I just balance the level of risk with the cost of prevention.

Others mention the cleaning factor, as in "its much easier to clean a filter than a lens". I never really understood that argument either. The cleaning process is basically the same, whether one is cleaning a filter or a lens...as long as proper care is taken, no damage will result and your gear will be just fine.

I guess the bottom line is if using a protection filter gives you the "warm fuzzies", then by all means continue to do what makes you comfortable. I base my practices on real-life results after nearly 35 years of shooting, in which I have yet to damage a lens that wasn't filtered 100% of the time.

Plus one to all that Argyle wrote, particularly the highlighted part. If I bought a top quality filter for all of my lenses it would run into several hundred pounds. That money would be spent on possibly saving me a couple of hundred for a repair, if the worst should happen. I can't see the logic in spending £4-500 just to possibly save £200.

Besides, I have been shooting SLRs for almost 30 years. Never used filters except when needed for the shot (CPL, ND grads etc) and that is less than 10% of the time. I don't baby my gear, my old 35mm kit has dents, grazes and whatever all over it, two lenses have bashed in filter threads where they have taken a hard knock 'on the nose'. I have never yet so much as scratched a front element, however the knocks that dented those two lenses filter threads would almost certainly have shattered a filter had one been fitted. That could easily have resulted in glass shards being shoved into the front element and damaged it. I have known it happen to other people (and someone above posted that it had happened to them also).

So filters can be the cause of damage in many cases, but only 'protect' against some situations.

I live by the sea and use my lenses on the beach and in many other 'hazardous' environments. I regularly have to clean up the front element in between shoots, blow off the dirt and then polish up with a lens cloth (and lens fluid to remove stubborn marks). In the field if the lens is getting grubby it will get a quick clean, often a flick with a soft brush if it is getting dusty. This does NOT damage the element unless you are really careless.

Front elements are much tougher than filters, a filter will scratch quite easily whilst being cleaned whereas an element won't.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using them, if you feel happier about it. I just can't justify the huge expense of fitting several lenses with filters, potentially degrading my images, when I can't see any benefit from them.

So, NO, it isn't crazy not to use them on L glass (particularly as you CAN'T use them on some L lenses).

[René Damkot]

Others mention the cleaning factor, as in "its much easier to clean a filter than a lens". I never really understood that argument either. The cleaning process is basically the same, whether one is cleaning a filter or a lens...

Ever tried putting a lens in the dish washer? :lol:

[Bill Roberts]

Ever tried putting a lens in the dish washer? :lol:


Only once...


:lol:

joking Rene!

[Jon]

Ever tried putting a lens in the dish washer? :lol:
Yes, but the filter protected it :{)#

[argyle]

Thanks for the laugh argyle! No, genuinely, no sarcasm at all. It was the "warm fuzzies" bit that did it :lol: I really did LOL!

It sounds like we've been at this game for a similar kind of time, (40 years or so) and we're NEVER going to agree on the filter issue in a million years. But it really doesn't matter at all.

May I wish you and everyone else on here a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


cheers

No sarcasm taken, Bill...and I sure didn't have that intent either when I posted. Just my way of saying that some folks get a bit of comfort in knowing there's a filter on the lens.

Ever tried putting a lens in the dish washer? :lol:

:D:D:D When I typed what I typed, I actually thought about the ability/advantage in cleaning a filter under the tap with dish detergent (as long as its not a CPL). Clearly, this is one benefit as compared to cleaning a lens (unless you happen to be out in the field with no tap and no soap). ;)

As well, Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to everyone here also.

[TheHoff]

I stepped on my pack of filters the other day... I broke $400 in NDs and CPLs with one foot. So much for lens protection.

[SkipD]

I stepped on my pack of filters the other day... I broke $400 in NDs and CPLs with one foot. So much for lens protection.The problem was that you didn't have UV filters on both ends of the stack to protect the "useful" filters :rolleyes:.

[René Damkot]

Auch...
:lol:

[wiliam00]

I put a UV filter on my lens right before my very first shot. No need to be a very good one. A $10 Tiffen, Sunpak or Hoya would do the job well. For serious accidents like: a golf ball, baseball or hockey ball hit your lens with their velocity, nothing can stop the impact. That's can happen in a rate of 1/1000. But for everyday stuff like coming dust, bugs or a suicide fly, such can silently damage your lens, an UV filter can very well be the body guard for your lens. For a L series lens? yes, absolutely.

[argyle]

I put a UV filter on my lens right before my very first shot. No need to be a very good one.

You may want to re-think that approach...no filter is better than a POS filter. If you don't believe that, try this link:

POS Filter on a 100-400L (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/598361)

[sandpiper]

I put a UV filter on my lens right before my very first shot. No need to be a very good one. A $10 Tiffen, Sunpak or Hoya would do the job well. For serious accidents like: a golf ball, baseball or hockey ball hit your lens with their velocity, nothing can stop the impact. That's can happen in a rate of 1/1000. But for everyday stuff like coming dust, bugs or a suicide fly, such can silently damage your lens, an UV filter can very well be the body guard for your lens. For a L series lens? yes, absolutely.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is a good idea to drop a $1,000 + on the best quality optical glass you can get, then stick $10 worth of cheap glass on the business end ??? :rolleyes: If you are happy with the image quality that will give you, save yourself a few hundred bucks and buy a cheap lens.

Errrm, suicide flies ?? In over 40 years of photography I have never yet had a fly hit my lens, coming in at such a speed that it smears itself all over the front element. I have managed to get various other ucky gunk on the front element however but I just clean it off and carry on.

[JohnJ80]

You may want to re-think that approach...no filter is better than a POS filter. If you don't believe that, try this link:

POS Filter on a 100-400L (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/598361)

and this link:

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387/1

Using UV filters is a big waste of time and money unless you need them to complete the weather sealing or you are shooting in conditions in which junk is flying around (moisture, sand etc...). Use the hood.

J.

[hollis_f]

Using UV filters is a big waste of time and money unless you need them to complete the weather sealing or you are shooting in conditions in which junk is flying around (moisture, sand etc...). Use the hood.
+1 for this.

When I got my first dSLR I was persuaded by the salesman that I needed a 'protective' filter for my 70-300 DO. For a couple of weeks I was most disapointed with the results. Until I took the filter off - the difference was quite marked. Now I rely on hoods and being careful for protection.

[JohnJ80]

To add to this, my understanding is that replacing the last element in the lens is something like a $75 repair and you may never need to do it. Buying a good quality UV filter will set you back $50 and, using the typical mindset, you need one for every lens. Clearly it is much cheaper and gives better image quality to go naked.

On top of that, dust or slight imperfections on the outer lens element have little to no impact on image quality - not nearly as much as flare or other issues with UV filters.

UV filters can cause some really subtle problems. There are threads around here about certain UV filters causing issues with the camera AF too.

J.

[doubledragon]

To add to this, my understanding is that replacing the last element in the lens is something like a $75 repair

so canon would replace a scratched front element on my 70-200 2.8 for just $75 ? That would definitely give me enough piece of mind to leave the protective filter at home.

[Jon]

That's more likely the labor charge. You might get the front element of a $100-$300 lens for that, but I doubt that an L element would be so inexpensive.

[JohnJ80]

I think that is about right (heard it a couple of places). I'd like to see it confirmed through. It is no big deal to get it out.

Even if it were $300 (your high end). It's still a very reasonable risk to take when good filters go for $50 or so each.

J.

[DozerLYP]

Used to, not anymore ether.

[Kaben]

I will always put a protective filter on my lenses form now on.

Saturday morning i bought a UV lens protector for my 10-22 because I was doing my first ever nightclub photo shoot and i didn't have a 77mm filter to fit the wide-angle lens yet. I almost didn't bother as i was running late and had to catch a train.

I am so glad i did! I was taking a photo of a guy doing some limbo dancing under a pole, and as he was straightening up, he drunkenly staggered, fell over and headbutted my camera lens!!!
He hit it really hard, gashed his face open and actually left a lump of flesh on my filter (the cerated bit on the edge that's there for grip) - it was gross!

Blood was streaming everywhere, but luckily (in fact i have no idea how!) there were no scratches on my gear and it all worked perfectly so i was happy - blood is hard to clean off a filter though, it tends to smear!

Always use a filter - you never know what random act will attempt to destroy your beautiful expensive lenses. I would much prefer to pay £40 for a filter over and over than £400 +++++ to replace a lens.
Yes, you may be able to get the lens element replaced, but if you are on an assignment or holiday, you have lost all the pictures that lens could have got you until you get home.

[sandpiper]

I will always put a protective filter on my lenses form now on.

Saturday morning i bought a UV lens protector for my 10-22 because I was doing my first ever nightclub photo shoot and i didn't have a 77mm filter to fit the wide-angle lens yet. I almost didn't bother as i was running late and had to catch a train.

I am so glad i did! I was taking a photo of a guy doing some limbo dancing under a pole, and as he was straightening up, he drunkenly staggered, fell over and headbutted my camera lens!!!
He hit it really hard, gashed his face open and actually left a lump of flesh on my filter (the cerated bit on the edge that's there for grip) - it was gross!

Blood was streaming everywhere, but luckily (in fact i have no idea how!) there were no scratches on my gear and it all worked perfectly so i was happy - blood is hard to clean off a filter though, it tends to smear!

Always use a filter - you never know what random act will attempt to destroy your beautiful expensive lenses. I would much prefer to pay £40 for a filter over and over than £400 +++++ to replace a lens.
Yes, you may be able to get the lens element replaced, but if you are on an assignment or holiday, you have lost all the pictures that lens could have got you until you get home.

Yes, but the filter didn't save the lens in any way. If the filter wasn't scratched and just needed the blood cleaning off, that would be the same for the element. Clean it up and carry on, the only advantage of the filter would be that you could take it off and shoot straight away rather than having to clean up the lens first.

A hood might have done an even better job than the filter, as it would have helped keep his head (and the blood) further away from the glass. With a longer lens the hood certainly would have been better but the 10-22 hood is so short that his head may still have got close to the glass.

On the other hand, had his head broken the flimsy glass that filters are made of (yes, they do break easily) it would have rammed dozens of sharp glass shards straight into your front element and probably seriously damaged it. An unprotected element would not break with a simple headbutt, as they are much thicker and beefier than filters.

In this case, the best the filter was going to do was take the blood bath and mean that you had to clean the filter and not the lens. The lens wasn't going to take any actual damage without the filter. On the other hand, you were very lucky the filter didn't shatter and cause serious damage to the lens.

[Ron Bailey]

A lazy reply (I've not read any of the replies, just the first post).

Why put a $10 or even a $200 piece of glass on a $2,000 piece of glass?

If you don't need to protect the lens from the elements you are shooting at the moment I would not bother with one. You might as well just shoot through the windshield of your car.

[JohnJ80]

Yes, but the filter didn't save the lens in any way. If the filter wasn't scratched and just needed the blood cleaning off, that would be the same for the element. Clean it up and carry on, the only advantage of the filter would be that you could take it off and shoot straight away rather than having to clean up the lens first.

A hood might have done an even better job than the filter, as it would have helped keep his head (and the blood) further away from the glass. With a longer lens the hood certainly would have been better but the 10-22 hood is so short that his head may still have got close to the glass.

On the other hand, had his head broken the flimsy glass that filters are made of (yes, they do break easily) it would have rammed dozens of sharp glass shards straight into your front element and probably seriously damaged it. An unprotected element would not break with a simple headbutt, as they are much thicker and beefier than filters.

In this case, the best the filter was going to do was take the blood bath and mean that you had to clean the filter and not the lens. The lens wasn't going to take any actual damage without the filter. On the other hand, you were very lucky the filter didn't shatter and cause serious damage to the lens.

Exactly right!

I've dropped cameras and had the filter ring take the impact, shattering the filter all over the lens. I too mistakenly thought the filter had "saved" my lens until I looked closer and realized that the the filter hadn't saved anything - but put sharp shards of glass over my lens. Again, the lens hood (as it sounds like in this case) would have been more useful in protection.

The reason for using UV filters with film was because the film - at high altitude - would often show a haze or blue tint to the image because film was more sensitive to UV than a digital sensor is. Now, even for that, they are unneeded - except for the camera stores where they are probably the biggest profit generator in the accessory department.

J.

[alt4852]

in drizzly or foggy weather, i've occasionally wiped down my uv filter with my shirt. it's just something that i wouldn't feel comfortable doing to the front element of my lens. additionally, there are often kids at the events that i frequent and when i'm not using my camera, it is slung over my shoulder. long story short, i've had fingerprints on my filters before. lens caps are too time consuming when you're out shooting, and filters are my little invisible line of defense against the elements. plus, the b+w mrc filters that i have are amazing. for anyone who claims that there's significant IQ loss, i'd be happy to post images with and without a filter upon request and i challenge any of you to reliably pick out which is which from a lineup. i'm fairly confident it'd be guesswork at best.

ps: i use hoods every time i shoot.

[Kaben]

You may want to re-think that approach...no filter is better than a POS filter. If you don't believe that, try this link:

POS Filter on a 100-400L (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/598361)

Very very true, i used to have a cheap Hoya filter on an old Tamron 80-210 lens for my 35mm and i had always thought it was a terrible lens as the IQ was always so soft. Because of this I never used it. It wasn't until recently, when i dug the lens out so i could put the filter on my Ef 50 1.8 II, that i realised how terrible the filter had made the nifty's usually excellent IQ.

I now regularly use the tamron as it is actually pretty damned sharp - im just so pissed of that it took me all these years to realise it was the ****ty hoya uv filter that was on it from day one.

I had vowed never to use HOYA again, but their PRO1 Digital and SUPER ranges are pretty damn good.

[Kaben]

In this case, the best the filter was going to do was take the blood bath and mean that you had to clean the filter and not the lens. The lens wasn't going to take any actual damage without the filter. On the other hand, you were very lucky the filter didn't shatter and cause serious damage to the lens.

You are right, and i will be buying a hood for the 10-22 as soon as i can. I hadn't considered the effect of glass shards on the lens if the filter broke, which is quite a scary possibility really.
However, i was VERY glad that i could just continue shooting right away as i only had the 50mm & 10-22mm with me and i would have been screwed if i had had to do crowd shots with a 50 prime :shock:.

( i understand that taking spare glass with you is the best course of action, but im not far enough with this to be able afford the outlay of a 2nd lens of a type i already have.)

[Ron Bailey]

in drizzly or foggy weather, i've occasionally wiped down my uv filter with my shirt. it's just something that i wouldn't feel comfortable doing to the front element of my lens. additionally, there are often kids at the events that i frequent and when i'm not using my camera, it is slung over my shoulder. long story short, i've had fingerprints on my filters before. lens caps are too time consuming when you're out shooting, and filters are my little invisible line of defense against the elements. plus, the b+w mrc filters that i have are amazing. for anyone who claims that there's significant IQ loss, i'd be happy to post images with and without a filter upon request and i challenge any of you to reliably pick out which is which from a lineup. i'm fairly confident it'd be guesswork at best.

ps: i use hoods every time i shoot.

Yeah, I could pick out the one without the filter if you had the prints before me but I could not pick which one online since they all pretty much look alike once they've been torn apart and then put back together to fit online.

It just makes sense that when you put a $100 piece of glass in front of a $2000 piece of glass you will see the difference. I can.

[photoguy6405]

Why put a $10 or even a $200 piece of glass on a $2,000 piece of glass?

If you don't need to protect the lens from the elements you are shooting at the moment I would not bother with one. You might as well just shoot through the windshield of your car.

Upfront disclaimer: Except in extreme conditions, I no longer use protective filters either for the same reasons many here state, but...

...it's not strictly a $2000 piece of glass. Much of the price of the lens is in the housing, other pieces of glass inside, technology, and so on. If what was said above is true about the outer glass being easily and inexpensively replaceable, then the true cost/value of the lens glass is much closer to the cost of a good filter.

[Ron Bailey]

For me it all boils down to IQ and there is a difference when you shoot through more glass than the lens came with.

I still think it's funny when you see something like a 16-35 2.8 II with a $10 UV filter on it. What's the point? Unless you are shooting in sand, water or marble dust.

Just my .02 worth.

[mobilebucky]

The way I look at is this, if I can live with not having a "protective" filter on my super teles (not that there is one out there anyway). I think I am ok with not having one for my other lenses. On the other hand, I do use lens hoods religiously on all my lenses except my 50 1.4 and my fisheyes.

[alt4852]

Yeah, I could pick out the one without the filter if you had the prints before me but I could not pick which one online since they all pretty much look alike once they've been torn apart and then put back together to fit online.

It just makes sense that when you put a $100 piece of glass in front of a $2000 piece of glass you will see the difference. I can.

since mailing you massive prints is out of the question, would RAW files be acceptable? i'd be more than willing to take pictures with and without my uv filter to put under the scrutiny of your eye. when i first bought my filter, i tested myself in this very manner and could not reliably guess which picture was which. i'm simply not convinced that anyone else can with any semblance of accuracy either without pixel peeping extremely hard and nitpicking at details which in no way affect the overall quality of a picture.

[SkipD]

Uv filter can protec your camera better than lens hood.In what way?

[foxbat]

You may want to re-think that approach...no filter is better than a POS filter. If you don't believe that, try this link:

POS Filter on a 100-400L (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/598361)
Not only will a cheap filter ruin your image quality, it can also interfere with AF:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=272841

Shame the images are deleted from that thread because they showed the detrimental effect of a cheap filter really well.

[Bill Roberts]

Uv filter can protec your camera better than lens hood.


I've got to agree with Skip here. I suppose if we're being really pedantic then in a very limited way a filter *can* protect more than a lens hood can... (flying spray, dog snot, minor scratches and so on). But if it comes to needing something to absorb impacts there's no contest at all.

I'm still very pro filter, but I'm going to really try and avoid filter threads in future ;)

[Ron Bailey]

since mailing you massive prints is out of the question, would RAW files be acceptable? i'd be more than willing to take pictures with and without my uv filter to put under the scrutiny of your eye. when i first bought my filter, i tested myself in this very manner and could not reliably guess which picture was which. i'm simply not convinced that anyone else can with any semblance of accuracy either without pixel peeping extremely hard and nitpicking at details which in no way affect the overall quality of a picture.

Nothing personal but I don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone.:) I got over that part of my life in my 30's. I can tell the difference and you can't. That's fine with me and it won't affect my life in anyway whatsoever.:)

I hardly have time to post, let alone peek at images that are not part of my business.

Have a good one!

[Lacks_focus]

Didn't read this whole thread, just wanted to tell of a conversation I had with a fellow hockey shooter just recently. It’s interesting to me what people pick up and believe with out giving it any real thought.

We were shooting for different youth teams. This particular rink has one decent spot to shoot from that is not covered by very dirty glass, so we were pretty much side by side. She was using an XSi and a 70-200 f/2.8L. I noticed she had a filter and hood on the lens. What caught my eye was that the filter did not look clear to me, like maybe it was a Sky 1A and not a UV. Between periods, the conversation turned to gear and I asked her about the filter and if she thought is caused her any problems (She was complaining earlier that she was unable to get any good shots in this rink due to light, I was fine). She went into a long explanation about how a filter is required in sports photography because it will save your front element from damage... She went on to caution me about not using a filter on my 70-200. She said "what if a puck comes flying at you and hits the front element"?!?!?! You'll wish you had a filter on then! I just said, yeah, something to think about! What I was really thinking was, if a puck hit the front element of your lens, the only thing a filter is going to do is cause you to have to pick a few more chunks of glass out of your freaking mirror box!

BTW, filter or no filter, personal choice IMHO. I don't normally use one for protection. They are paper thin fragile sheets of glass. How the heck are they going to do anything for impact protection? I do have two UV filters in my bag for those times I may be shooting in sea spray or blowing sand, but that's it. I don't think they offer anything useful beyond shooting in those harsh conditions. Also, when needed, they complete the weather sealing on my 17-40.

[Karl Johnston]

This is a lotta pages for a quick answer

OP: Is it crazy to not use a UV filter?

No. It's preference, If you want to you can. I personally don't, but that's because I see 75 $ for a chunk of glass that obstructs the light entering my camera as a worthless investment and I don't do any shooting that would involve me damaging or dirtying the lens. The purer the light, the better, for my photography.

[vibin247]

I use Heliopan UV filters for both my L lenses. No, they're not the multicoated kind and I don't see a difference in image quality. It is an important point that they don't protect the front element from impact (that's what lens hoods are for), but they're good for protection from moisture, dust, grime, and other stuff that can accumulate just over a day's work. Perhaps the only time I would take UV filter off is if I would have to shoot against the sun, where minimizing lens flare is paramount.

[Amamba]

Think about that... to scratch the front glass (or any material for that matter) you need something that is sharp and hard (as hard or harder than glass) dragging across the glass with a bit of force.

So, a sand particle would scratch your front element if you give it a generous rubbing. It won't scratch your lens by simply being blown by the wind (unless it's a 50+ mph storm).

In a typical "UV protected my lens" scenario the glass on UV filter gets shattered and impacts the front element of the lens. The shattered glass is sharp and hard - I believe typical hardness of the glass is about the same as hardened tool steel, and more than mild steel. (About 700 Vickers or 60 Brinell C for technically inclined). This is why historically people used diamonds to cut glass, not knives or nails. So you run a higher chance to scratch your lens with your broken filter than with whatever broke it. And of course the impact protection of a filter is near zero.

The one protection filter does provide is against smears. I kept mine on, initially, because I was worrying about fingerprints & frequent cleaning wearing off the lens coating. However I came to realize that coating is not going to be destroyed by fingerprints or gentle cleaning or occasional water droplet. So for me at least, there's really no benefit of having the filter on glass unless you're in really ****ty conditions.

[ALT1MATE]

I'm another one that used to use 'em but not anymore. A lens hood will provide better protection against fingerprints and knocks. Weather sealing is another issue. However, my 400D is not even remotely weather sealed.

[Clevor]

Doesn't matter how it happened, but good luck selling a lens with a scratch or score on it. Contax Zeiss lenses are popular on Ebay and I saw one like this. The seller said it wouldn't affect image quality but sorry, no takers . . .

What about the infamous dust problem on the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS? I heard a filter helps keep the dust out.

[JohnJ80]

FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. That's exactly how they market the UV filters.

J.

[Pat H]

I always keep a Hoya SHMC on my L lenses. I figure a broken filter is better than broken glass. But a previous poster had a point in saying that a shattered filter could scratch the lens as well. I guess it's just what makes YOU feel better.

[JohnJ80]

I always keep a Hoya SHMC on my L lenses. I figure a broken filter is better than broken glass. But a previous poster had a point in saying that a shattered filter could scratch the lens as well. I guess it's just what makes YOU feel better.

as opposed to "Is Better."

J

[Wilt]

...except when the hood acts as a lever arm, causing the lens to come apart like this...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7644573&postcount=1

Nothing is absolute!

[Grentz]

Just the hood is good enough for me.

Filters do very little to protect in most situations IMO.

[CronoDL]

In general, I keep a UV filter to protect from dust/moisture. I'm not concerned about protection from impact or bumps, as I'm careful enough to not have that happen before. But there have been times when I'm by the water on the beach, and I get a nice little layer of salt spray on the filter. I'd rather clean that off a filter than my front element.

[msowsun]

If I was shooting by the water, on a beach, I might consider using a "protection filter". But it would have to be a pretty windy day with lots of salt water spraying around.

Otherwise my lenses always go "bareback" but with a hood.

[Jon]

Neither, alone, is adequate protection against all possible hazards. Neither will really protect your lens against that odd fall. Filters won't block stray light or stuff coming in from the side. Hoods won't stop wind-blown (or propwash blown) debris, sand, or grit and won't keep spray, kids' fingers or animal noses away, let alone direct frontal attacks from twigs/branches in undergrowth. I routinely encounter all of the above, so I use both.