How many of u use a UV filter?

xhack wrote in post #14661481
I was focussing on impact protection, where I do doubt their usefulness. Otherwise, we're singing from the same hymn sheet - I still use filters in sea spray, dust and other hostile environments.

I wouldn't consider a UV filter impact protection by any means and I would hope no one else here would either. The times I do use a UV filter protection, it's in addition to having the hood mounted as well.
Years ago I was shooting a motocross and a glob of mud flew up from a tire and managed to get inside the lens hood onto a UV filter. It was a simple matter of removing the filter, rinsing with water, and then a final clean with a lens cloth. Had it been the lens that got the mud splatter cleaning it would have been a bit different and not as easy.

Hogloff wrote in post #14661455
Fine blowing sand at beach or desert is enough proof for me.

Thorsten Milse shoots wildlife in the Namib-Naukluft desert and the Skeleton Coast of Namibia. Not only is this is a gritty, sandy, desert next to the sea, but it gets regular strong winds. So he naturally uses 'protective' filters on all his lenses, yes?

No! He reckons they degrade image quality too much and don't do much to protect the lens anyhow. At least that's what he said at Canon Pro Solutions last year.

Came across this today while looking at Craigslist -

"Up for sale is a 24-105mm f/4L IS. The reason it's being sold cheaply is because there's a thin scratch on the glass that happened when I was mounting a protective UV filter, and it slipped out of my hands. Pretty ironic, I know..."

I personally do not use UV filters on any of my lenses.

I practice unprotected photography.... living dangerously. What can I say. On select occasions I will live on the wild side and sport a ND or a gradient. But its got to be one of those special occasions.

Another filter question but same answer in short. "Personnel preference"
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1175596

This topic is like a zombie, it's so freaking dead, but still alive.

Do what YOU want. Opinions are useless. Citing one professional photographer as 'proof' that they're useless, is useless. I've seen hundreds of professional photojournalists using filters as protection, and their photos win pulitzers. Granted they shoot in the worst places imaginable...

No one on here would be able to tell whether it was or was not taken with a UV/protective filter, so F em.

Another one for "no UV filter; use a hood, instead.

hollis_f wrote in post #14661886
Thorsten Milse shoots wildlife in the Namib-Naukluft desert and the Skeleton Coast of Namibia. Not only is this is a gritty, sandy, desert next to the sea, but it gets regular strong winds. So he naturally uses 'protective' filters on all his lenses, yes?

No! He reckons they degrade image quality too much and don't do much to protect the lens anyhow. At least that's what he said at Canon Pro Solutions last year.

I bet you your gear that I can post 10 photos and you would not be able to accurately pick which were shot with the UV filters in place. That reason is such a crock. If you don't want to shoot with a UV, that is your choice, but don't go selling BS to other people on these threads.

I'd say 90% of my photos are taken with one type of filter or another. Many have a polarizer as well as a ND filter and the occasional even has a GND filter hand held and I print large 36x24 and up photos for sale and my customers love their purchases. Pixel peepers and gear monkeys might zoom in to 100% and see a bit of image quality loss, but in the end where it counts, the customers eyes, filters matter squat. That much I know.

no filters for me...i've taken many shots on the beach/sea...and still don't see the need for it...sea spray cleans off...people baby their gear, and don't realize it's a lot tougher than they think...

if you want to know if it affects your IQ, just take some pics with it on, and then off, and compare the two...or if it's a tiffen brand, then just assume it messes it up

I use B+W filters on all my lenses.

I haven't shot for very long, but I do see how people can rationalize not needing one. Depends on what kinds of environments you shoot in I guess. At $50+ a pop, it really is a personal battle.

Hogloff wrote in post #14661455
Fine blowing sand at beach or desert is enough proof for me. Takes one missed grain on the glass and when you go to
clean with your lens cloth, there is nothing sharper to create those fine scratches on your glass.

Like I said, if you don't shoot in conditions that warrant a protective filter, then using one is a waste of time. However I pointed out senarios that are real where a protective filter will reduce your chance of damaging your front element. And no, the lens hood will not help much in these conditions.

1 grain of sand - really?

I spend a minimum of two weeks a year in Mexico. Have taken the same camera and 4 lenses down there every year for the past 6 years. Have never used a UV filter for any reason on any lens. And while I think I'm quite protective of my gear - people on this forum would have you believe I abuse it and shouldn't be allowed to own it:

1) Of my 4 lenses, 3 are primes and I change them CONSTANTLY ... on the beach. I take no special measures to protect the lens or the body when changing out glass other than simply holding the body face down so that gravity helps out a bit.

Two things you should never talk about in photography: Use of a UV Filter & Jpeg vs RAW

I never us UV filters, most of the time I use a hood

Bill Ng wrote in post #14663131
1 grain of sand - really?

I spend a minimum of two weeks a year in Mexico. Have taken the same camera and 4 lenses down there every year for the past 6 years. Have never used a UV filter for any reason on any lens. And while I think I'm quite protective of my gear - people on this forum would have you believe I abuse it and shouldn't be allowed to own it:

1) Of my 4 lenses, 3 are primes and I change them CONSTANTLY ... on the beach. I take no special measures to protect the lens or the body when changing out glass other than simply holding the body face down so that gravity helps out a bit.

2) I routinely get myself in the pool with my body and lens (often my one zoom, my 70-200 2.8) and enjoy the perspective of being 4 inches off the water. This frequently results in water/spray on my gear and the end of my lens.

3) I prefer to take the good gear on the adventures cause those are the shots I really want to get right (as opposed to taking a water-proof P&S):

4) And I LOVE shooting in the rain for the colors and the effects. Now in this shot, of course I had filters in place - you don't get a 6-minute exposure in daytime without some serious ND stacking - but nothing need to be cleaned after this shot and keep in mind that while you can't see it because of the shutter time, this shot is dead smack in the middle of a severe rainstorm:

Seriously - listen to others. The UV filter as protection thing is myth. They don't do anything but degrade image quality and break really easily. Have you ever actually seen the thickness of the front element on any of your lenses? It's easily 5 times thicker than a UV filter and it happens to be convex which adds plenty of strength from front-impacts.

Stop wasting money and ditch them things forever. If you're really worried about wiping sand on your front element and scratching the glass, get a Rocket Blower and a Lens Pen and be done with it. Those are the only two "cleaning" items that exist in my bag and in 20 years of shooting I've yet to come across a situation that either of them couldn't handle except for the following parting story:

The first vacation my wife and I ever went on as a couple was to Mexico. I was still shooting film back then via a Canon SLR, we took a dune-buggy adventure tour in Puerto Vallarta and got COVERED head to toe in mud - including my camera and the lens. Next time I stopped the car I put some water in my mouth, spit it onto the front element to wash away the excess mud/dirt, cleaned the water off with part of my underwear (only part of me not covered in mud), and went on shooting. Still have those prints in an album on my bookshelf. Washed the camera off with a damp cloth when we got back to the hotel and forgot the event ever happened. Did nothing to any of my gear and none of it was weather sealed.

And I bet you don't even take any freezing for dental work. Just bite on the old bullet right.

I wonder how all those lenses get fine scratches on them that get sold quite often for 1/2 of what they would fetch without that fine scratch.

I'm unconvinced that they offer ANY mechanical protection to the lens but they do - at least to some extent - protect the filter mounting threads. That said, I do have (decent) filters on most of my lenses and I always use a hood. I figure that they're unlikely to damage the IQ noticeably but I can clean the front element with impunity. This helps if I'm shooting in extreme weather conditions.

They come off if I'm shooting into the sun.

There's really no point tho' in using UV filters - unless your camera's modified to make it full-spectrum, it can't see UV light. If it can't see UV light it seems that there's not a whole lot of reason to filter it out....