UV Filter Usage

I just purchased the 17-40 and will be heading to southwest Utah in a few weeks. I know the lens is not completely sealed until a filter is attached, but I am concerned about the image quality with the filter installed. I have found a B+W 77mm MRC UV filter for about $70, but I feel strange putting that in front of my new $800 lens. I have no experience with UV filters so I would love to hear any opinions/experiences. Thanks.

Skip it. Maybe if you were out in a bad duststorm or rainstorm then use it, but otherwise dont waste your money. FYI, that lens will not be totally sealed even with the filter.

Have a blast in Utah...don't forget the tripod.

No impact on IQ with my B+W MRC filters, except in the harshest lighting conditions where there is a slight loss of contrast. So little impact that I don't bother taking them off anymore.

I've taken off all the protective clear filters from my lenses as any glass in front of the lens is just another element that degrades IQ, and I don't care by how few percentage points. I use a hood on all the lenses instead.

The sensor has a UV filter, you don't need another on the lens.

There has been many many threads on this subject. That's not to say it's not a valid question, merely that there's no definitive answer. Opinions are probably split around 50% for and 50% against.

All I can say is that if you're not happy with the idea of putting extra glass in front of the front element then don't do it! My personal opinion is that it's well worth using a top quality filter, but I'm not about to have an argument with anyone who has the oopposite opinion. Life's too short!

cheers

I have CPL filters for each lens diameter and one variable density filter for my Sigma 85 F1.4. IMO UV filters just degrade the images. As noted above Canon sensors are equipped with UV filtering so no additional filtration needed here.

I would rather not have shards of glass stabbing the front element from a bump that otherwise would have left not even a rubbing mark.

If you don't feel happy using one, then I would suggest you don't bother. I have been filterless for over 30 years with no damage to any front elements or problems with water getting in (although I don't use my gear in prolonged heavy rain, as neither of my bodies have any weather sealing either).

I don't baby my gear, I tend to bang it about a bit in fact, and filters would probably just keep getting broken if I fitted them, with a risk that the glass shards would get onto the front element. I always use hoods for protection though.

The main advantage of filters is peace of mind for owners who worry about their gear a lot. They apparently don't cause any noticeable degradation of the image, most of the time, if you get a good one, so it really does come down to the peace of mind if you feel that they will help protect the lens (I don't, but that's a personal opinion based on my experiences).

You will never get a consensus in a forum, some are passionate about telling people that their lens will be ruined if they don't fit one, others will be equally passionate that using one will ruin your images. In reality, neither side is really correct. Just use one if it will make you feel better, don't if it won't.

sandpiper wrote in post #14222675
You will never get a consensus in a forum, some are passionate about telling people that their lens will be ruined if they don't fit one, others will be equally passionate that using one will ruin your images. In reality, neither side is really correct. Just use one if it will make you feel better, don't if it won't.

Yep. All down to personal choice. I use B&W UV MRC filters on all my lenses - excellent quality filters.

My advice would be to get the UV filter, but keep it in your bag and use it when conditions require a bit of protection, such as flying dirt/dust/debris, sand, water, etc. A UV filter does not provide a single creative benefit as that of a CPL or ND filter...so why bother keeping it in front of your lens?

argyle wrote in post #14224463
My advice would be to get the UV filter, but keep it in your bag and use it when conditions require a bit of protection, such as flying dirt/dust/debris, sand, water, etc. A UV filter does not provide a single creative benefit as that of a CPL or ND filter...so why bother keeping it in front of your lens?

Plus 1

Exactly ... carry it along and put it on if it looks risky ...

tvphotog wrote in post #14221834
The sensor has a UV filter, you don't need another on the lens.

I'm sure people with digital camera's who buy UV filter's don't buy them for the purpose of filtering out UV light.

Sirrith wrote in post #14219782
No impact on IQ with my B+W MRC filters, except in the harshest lighting conditions where there is a slight loss of contrast. So little impact that I don't bother taking them off anymore.

I'm a film user and I have B+W MRC filters on all my lenses. No issues at all. My most "valuable" lens is a Leica Noctilux which is worth about $7K and I've had a B+W filter on it since I bought it and have never felt strange... So go ahead and use it!

I have a Hoya MRC UV filter on my 17-55 f2.8 at the moment. It's mostly as an experiment, as there is a block of owners who swear that it helps with eliminating dust from getting inside of the front element. Although I admit that I haven't had any issues with dust, I figure that it can't hurt, and since the lens isn't one of the top flare performers anyway, I don't think that using a GOOD UV filter is likely to be a problem. It certainly won't affect any normal photos.

Other than that, I don't use UV filters on any lenses. I have CPL's for both the 77mm and 67mm sizes of my lenses, as well as a couple of ND filters.

...and then somebody has to bring up that on many lenses a filter is actually required to complete the weather sealing...