UV filters....Yes or No....

What are some of your thoughts on UV filters lessoning the sharpness and color of your captures. I have UV's on all my lenses but never actually thought about shooting without. I'll do some testing but I wanted to see what peoples thoughts are.

Hoods on. No filters unless you need one for a specific situation.

Filters add glass. They all degrade image quality as a result. They all can reflect light in ways that impact results.

To learn more about lenses, filters and optics, read this book http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1304687​196&sr=1-3

I've not noticed any impact from using my filters, so I leave them on generally, unless I happen to know that they will have an effect e.g. flare in a particular situation I'm shooting in. I also like them a lot when shooting coastal landscapes and seascapes and on windy days.

S.Horton wrote in post #12523244
Hoods on. No filters unless you need one for a specific situation.

Filters add glass. They all degrade image quality as a result. They all can reflect light in ways that impact results.

To learn more about lenses, filters and optics, read this book http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1304687​196&sr=1-3

What Sam said!!!!

I always use hoods. I own one UV filter which is available in case I ever get in a situation where the front element might get sprayed with something. So far, it sits in the bag.

I go back and forth on this.

As of right now, all my lenses have UV filters on them. In the case of the 17-40, the weather sealing is dependent on having a filter on the front, so that lens always has one. With the others, I havent seen much difference in IQ with or without, so they stay on.

That said, I can't help but feel like the extra glass (even if it is B+W) must be doing something to the image.

I always use a hood, and never use a filter unless for a reason. I do keep a filter on my 17-55mm at all times though to keep dust from being sucked into it. If I'm not using a filter for a reason on that particular lens, it'll at least have a UV filter on it.

S.Horton wrote in post #12523244
Hoods on. No filters unless you need one for a specific situation.

Filters add glass. They all degrade image quality as a result. They all can reflect light in ways that impact results.

To learn more about lenses, filters and optics, read this book http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1304687​196&sr=1-3

That pretty much covers it.

A good, recent post regarding this, also. Thanks to hollis_f!

Thanks for all the great feedback guys. I mainly use them for protection from the elements and because I'm very anal about my equipment. I would vacuum seal my equipment after every use if there was a cost effective way to do it and if it didn't outcast me from the rest of the world for doing it!

Snydremark wrote in post #12523636
A good, recent post regarding this, also. Thanks to hollis_f!

A post in which I demonstrated that my B+W filters have absolutely no effect on IQ even when pointed at the sun

Sirrith wrote in post #12523880
A post in which I demonstrated that my B+W filters have absolutely no effect on IQ even when pointed at the sun

Didn't HAPPEN to have an effect; probably because you spent extra money for good ones. There are plenty of threads around here that show that UV filters, especially cheap ones, can and DO have a negative effect on images at times

There is still a 100% CHANCE for a filter to have a negative effect on each shot if it is in place, that does not exist if you don't put it on there in the first place.

This is also true for CPLs, ND filters, GND filters, etc; however, these filters all have a benefit to the images they are used for, which outweighs that chance for most photographers. UV filters do absolutely no GOOD for your images (on digitial cameras) and the benefits of lens "protection" can be argued ad nauseum, either direction.

For most lenses, a rigid, plastic hood is significantly cheaper than a good UV filter and serves a functional purpose in blocking unwanted light spill across the front element. And, unless improperly sized/mounted, does not degrade your images.

In the end, it's entirely up to you what you want to spend money on, but adding $100 to any lens purchase or swapping filters around every time you change a lens seems like a time and money sink.

Snydremark wrote in post #12523977
In the end, it's entirely up to you what you want to spend money on, but adding $100 to any lens purchase or swapping filters around every time you change a lens seems like a time and money sink.

This is why I don't use filters.

Aside from the fact that I am super clumsy and would probably scratch the lens just by putting a filter on it, $100 dollars is a lot of money for something that really doesn't do anything.

This was pretty funny on UV filters. 50 UV filters stacked on a lens to see IQ results. I guess only a rental place would have that many low quality filters at their disposal...

http://www.lensrentals​.com …od-times-with-bad-filters

Allscape wrote in post #12524555
This was pretty funny on UV filters. 50 UV filters stacked on a lens to see IQ results. I guess only a rental place would have that many low quality filters at their disposal...

http://www.lensrentals​.com …od-times-with-bad-filters

That blog post is pretty fantastic.

I like the shot of the guy holding the lens with 50 filters on the end!

sbattey wrote in post #12524626
That blog post is pretty fantastic.

I like the shot of the guy holding the lens with 50 filters on the end!

I think you would need a pretty sturdy tripod for that!

BTW, I would assume that this little experiment with 50 UV filters applies to CP filters as well.