Using UV filters and lens hoods indoors

[haroldsilber]

Good day
I am shooting a very important dinner / function on Saturday night inside a large hall. Using a 10D with the following lenses : 50mm 1.8 / 24-85mm F3.5 / sigma 18-125 mm DC / 70-200 F4 canon. Flash : 550EX
Might be a stupid question but do I need to keep on the UV filters and lens hoods.? Will i get sharper images without the UV filters?
Also I will prefer not to use the lens hoods..

Awaiting your expert answers

Harold
Johannesburg,
South Africa

[jfrancho]

Well if the purpose for either accessory is to protect the lens, then compromise by using the hood, always.

[m3elmo]

I would use teh lens filter still b/c it serves for me mainly as a protector for my lens. The hood i could do without.

[rent]

no filter, always hood.

even indoors, artificial lighting can still cause flares. the hood will prevent stray light from hitting your lens. removing the filter also prevents flaring.

-alex

[Darter]

Sounds like there is going to be a lot of people walking around. I'd keep at least one of the two on for lens protection as you wade through the room.

[the.digital.guy]

I would take the UV filter off(I only us my UV filters outdoors) and just use the Hood to keep any stray light away from the lens.

[jfrancho]

A UV filter will protect the lens from fingerprints or abrasions, but offers little to protect against imapcts. The hood does a good job of that, especially in crowded areas. This seems to get discussed every couple of months here. You might try a search for more opinions.

[burnet44]

so indoors dont use a UV filter?

[kf095]

Wow, seven years old thread and still no clear answer, LOL.
Or you didn't read #4 here?
Do not use UV filters at all, they are useless on DSLR.
Use hood to prevent flare and take any filter from the lens to make sure you don't get flare because of the filter indoors.

[amfoto1]

What, exactly, do you think the UV filter will "protect" against? Is someone planning a food fight or is it a paintball war or something?

Best protection against finger prints is to keep your fingers off the front element of your lenses.

Use the hood, ditch the filters. That's my vote and what I've done in general. If the filters are cheaper, single coated or uncoated filters, they are likely costing you image quality (you can check... take photos of something highly detailed, such as a brick wall, with and without the filter... then compare the images). There's an additional risk of flare, loss of color saturation and reduced contrast with filters, too. High quality, multi-coated filters don't do much or any noticeable harm to images in most common situations, but still can have an effect in more extreme lighting situations.

I have high qualilty, multi coated "protection" filters for my lenses and I install and use them occasionally, when shooting in situations where they might actually serve a purpose (say, shooting in a sand storm). Frankly, I imagine I have these filters on my lenses less than 1 or 2% of the time. Somehow my lenses survive pretty well without them... and have for the past 25 years or so.

I also have lens hoods for all my lenses and try to use them all the time. A proper fitted hood can do no harm, might do a whole lot of good improving the image and protecting the lens.

Sort of ironically, if using a filter - especially a lower quality, poorly coated one - it is even more important to also use the lens hood to keep oblique light off the filter as much as possible.

Back in the days of film, experieinced amateurs and pros used UV filters a lot because many types of film were overly sensitive to UV light... not as some sort of mythical "protection"... after all, a thin piece of glass can't provide much. UV light is stronger at high altitudes, so I used them quite a bit when I lived in Colorado.

Now with digital cameras, there is no problem with UV light. The camera filters it out itself and any very slight warming effect the filter might have is completely cancelled out by the cameras Auto or Custom White Balance anyway.

But filters are a very profitable item. So filter manufacturers and sales poeple in retail stores are only to happy to offer them and encourage you to believe that you need them for some sort of "protection" against who knows what that might threaten that precious new lens. Actually, it would probably be cheaper and more practical to just get insurance on your gear!

p.s. Ooops... I didn't notice this was ancient history being dredged up. Oh well, IMO the answer remains the same.

[MCAsan]

the UV filter can not improve the image. It will likely decrease the IQ depending on the quality of the filter.

Make a coaster out of it. ;)

[DC Fan]

Indoors pictures with a lens hood and a UV filter.

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing6/20120204c0002.jpg

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing6/20120204b0000a.jpg

http://www.kevinlillard.com/racing6/20120204a0000a.jpg

No problems detected.

[MesserschmittMan]

the UV filter can not improve the image.

Agreed. A decent filter however will degrade image quality to such a small degree that it would difficult to tell the difference between a filter/non filter image.

[MCAsan]

Then explain the business case for spending the money on one and carrrying it around when a hood is much cheaper? ;)

This UV thing, like daylight filters, is all old stuff left over from the film days.

[hollis_f]

Agreed. A decent filter however will degrade image quality to such a small degree that it would difficult to tell the difference between a filter/non filter image.

Under some conditions even an excellent filter will cause noticeable degradation.

[ben805]

To all the lazy people who doesn't bother to read the sticky first.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=807555

[MakisM1]

Under some conditions even an excellent filter will cause noticeable degradation.

Under some conditions, even a cheap filter will prevent noticeable degradation...

I had a succession of 3 UV filters on the FD f1.4 prime on my Canon FTb over a period of 14 years (I don't belong to the throaway generation...:lol:).

Nobody could afford the cumulative collection of scratches these filters had on the prime. Underneath, the 1.4 was in pristine condition, until the day it was stolen... 15 years after the purchase...

I don't know what the state of technology is now, but those days, the common wisdom was that fingerprint oils that remained on the lens for a long time could damage the coating of the lens.

I shoot with a good quality filter on AND a hood and I take the filter off if I think I am getting into a situation that can generate lens flare.

[hollis_f]

Under some conditions, even a cheap filter will prevent noticeable degradation...

I had a succession of 3 UV filters on the FD f1.4 prime on my Canon FTb over a period of 14 years (I don't belong to the throaway generation...:lol:).

Nobody could afford the cumulative collection of scratches these filters had on the prime.


Yes, I bet those scratched, dirty filters really helped image quality?

[rick_reno]

I use a hood indoors, I own some UV filters from when I used film but don't know where they are.