UV filters?

Hi sorry if this has been asked before, but I was always under the impression that UV filters serve to protect the front element much like screen protectors on cell phones and are a must have. However, after reading some threads on here, it seems like a lot of you don't use UV filters, so could I get the pros and cons of using UV filters, and also whether the general consensus is to use or not to use UV filters.

Thanks in advance.

There is a sticky FAQ thread on this in this forum. Have a read. If you have any further questions, let us know and we can debate the topic yet again.

Here's the FAQ: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=807555

I don't put protectors on my cell phone screens either. The glass is stronger than you think.

There's a "sticky" right at the top of the forum that goes into a lot of detail about it... See:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=807555

I don't generally use a filter. All DSLRs already have built in UV filtration, so the only purpose is "proteckshun". Personally I think it's sort of silly to expect a thin piece of glass to provide much meaningful protection... though sales people in the store will tell you it's essential, I'm sure.

When shooting, use a lens hood. When storing the lens, use a lens cap. Either will give better protection in most situations. In fact, when using a filter, it's even more important to use a hood.

I shot an event last weekend with another photographer who was using a 70-200/2.8 IS exactly like mine and have spent four days editing 6000+ images (shot by five of us). I've noticed all his shots have much more chromatic aberration than mine. I suspect he has a filter on his lens.

I do have protection filters to fit all my lenses, and they are stored separately in my camera bag until actually needed. I'll use them in sandstorms, when shooting near the surf (salt spray), maybe a few other risky situations when they might actually be of some help. But most of the time, my lenses are bare naked and I've yet to ever have one get damaged in any way that a filter might have prevented (30+ years shooting and dozens of different lens over the years).

oh whoops didn't see the filter sticky, has some pretty interesting stuff. thanks for the link.

One more question...

Are there a lot of fake filters out there? For example this one:

http://www.amazon.com …1?ie=UTF8&m=ALH​Q4LI8FCDXO

I've become increasingly skeptical buying amazon products from 3rd party sellers but the reviews and seller ratings look good except for one person who called them scammers but didn't elaborate. Do you guys think this is a fake?

swang9 wrote in post #14382299
One more question...

Are there a lot of fake filters out there? For example this one:

http://www.amazon.com …1?ie=UTF8&m=ALH​Q4LI8FCDXO

I've become increasingly skeptical buying amazon products from 3rd party sellers but the reviews and seller ratings look good except for one person who called them scammers but didn't elaborate. Do you guys think this is a fake?

If you're going to get a UV filer, at least get a good multi-coated one:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …243_72mm_UV_Haz​e_010.html

you dont really need it unless you're really insecure about your front. some say hood will do the trick. some ask why spend $$$$ on a glass and then put a $ in front of it?

for me, i would only consider one if you're doing seascapes due to the sea spray. which ive been telling myself to get one but never did :P

reason why is im always having to wipe the glass and i feel that im wearing out the coating.

that hoya filter I linked is a good multi-coated one. I'm just not sure if it's legit or not. I know for sure 99% of ebay ones are fake...

None for me!

mike_d wrote in post #14382151
I don't put protectors on my cell phone screens either. The glass is stronger than you think.

Agree with that one. Phones with Gorilla glass screens are very tough. To me phone screen protectors are like putting clear plastic slipcovers on good furniture. It may protect a bit, but they just look and feel like crap. Likewise, I only used UV protectors on windy days, especially in areas with sand or grit that may etch into my front element. The rest of the time, besides using a lens hood, my lenses are naked as nature intended it.

The rules and regulations for protective filters are as follows:

• If you must use one, use a quality one
  

I should save text somewhere and copy past every time this thread pops up.
Use protective filter, not UV, cameras with digital sensors don't need UV filters as film ones.
UV filter will modify light, doesn't matter how many coats on it. Clear protective filter will pass more light compare to UV.

when you have an L lens and you try to shot a 1 year old girl with it and she got all kinds of chocolate things on her fingers then suddenly she see something cute like a big black one eyed lens and its blinking and she wants to touch it, and she did O_O;;
things happen you know i say spend some $$ on your L-series there is a perfect filter B&W they got the greatest UV filters i think not cheap also the 77mm UV filter is 70$ but its worth it and its a little heavy comparing it to tiffen filters.

M.Haidar wrote in post #14387139
when you have an L lens and you try to shot a 1 year old girl with it and she got all kinds of chocolate things on her fingers then suddenly she see something cute like a big black one eyed lens and its blinking and she wants to touch it, and she did O_O;;
things happen you know i say spend some $$ on your L-series there is a perfect filter B&W they got the greatest UV filters i think not cheap also the 77mm UV filter is 70$ but its worth it and its a little heavy comparing it to tiffen filters.

Of all the reasons I’ve read why people use a filter, this is the most ridiculous. If you’re taking photos of a baby and the baby can reach out and touch the lens, you simply need a longer focal length. If the child can reach the lens it’s irresponsibility on the part of the photographer. With a longer focal length, you also won’t have a big camera in the baby’s face. This situation has nothing to do with filters vs. no filters. The photographer just needs to use common sense.