How many of u use a UV filter?

And the evil wizard travelled many leagues to the land of Jessopia. There he explained to the merchants of the land that they could persuade the eoslensaca to purchase the glass shields for large amounts of gold. And it came to pass that the merchants of Jessopia, from that day forth, we're known for their battle-cry "Well, you'll want a protective filter for the lens won't you? Only 80 pieces of silver."

I use a filter because I like the peace of mind and I have never noticed any detrimental effects as of yet.

I read that if you want to keep your lenses in pristine condition, you have two choices. 1. Keep the lens cap on at All times. 2. Keep all your lenses safely stored in your camera bag or better yet, in a dry cabinet. Whatever you do, don't expose them to any natural environment.

One of the side benefits of this strategy is the time you will save in PP.

Love this hollis_f!

None for me please! Lens hood and cap when not in use.

I notice that a lot of people only refer to cheap filters, or weaker glass, etc..but what if you invest in a good one? What about lenses that need one to complete their sealing?

I always laugh at how horribly defensive you "fitlers are the devil" people get anytime someone suggests that they have used high quality UV filters on all of their lenses and, GASP, they don't ruin their photographs.

Seriously, I understand that under the perfect storm of conditions, even a high quality filter can cause image degridation, contrast loss, increased flare, ect. However, in 7 years and well over 100,000 exposures on 6 different bodies and 7 different lenses that I have used with B+W MRC UV filters, I have never looked at one of my pictures and said "ohh if only I hadn't had that UV filter on there!"

Billginthekeys wrote in post #14669063
Seriously, I understand that under the perfect storm of conditions, even a high quality filter can cause image degridation, contrast loss, increased flare, ect.

Well, if 'good enough' is good enough for you that's cool.

hollis_f wrote in post #14669093
Well, if 'good enough' is good enough for you that's cool.

I don't know. This 100% crop was taken with a UV filter on the lens:
http://www.pbase.com …hotography/imag​e/68883482

Perhaps my expectations have been tempered after all these years of filter usage. Are you suggesting that if I hadn't used the fitler to seperate my lens from the target, the Osprey would just now literally jump free from the screen in front of me in some sort of black magic?

Billginthekeys wrote in post #14669063
I always laugh at how horribly defensive you "fitlers are the devil" people get anytime someone suggests that they have used high quality UV filters on all of their lenses and, GASP, they don't ruin their photographs.

Seriously, I understand that under the perfect storm of conditions, even a high quality filter can cause image degridation, contrast loss, increased flare, ect. However, in 7 years and well over 100,000 exposures on 6 different bodies and 7 different lenses that I have used with B+W MRC UV filters, I have never looked at one of my pictures and said "ohh if only I hadn't had that UV filter on there!"

But...how much OTHER gear, that actually DOES something, could you have bought for the money that you've spent on the UV filters? This isn't a cheap hobby, so why spend the money on things that don't improve your shots, or make getting the shots easier?

Snydremark wrote in post #14669209
But...how much OTHER gear, that actually DOES something, could you have bought for the money that you've spent on the UV filters? This isn't a cheap hobby, so why spend the money on things that don't improve your shots, or make getting the shots easier?

I shoot in a saltwater environment most of the time, often times on the boat in the sea spray, so I do need the filters for that (generally even filter haters admit that is a good time to use them) and to complete weather sealing on some lenses, so I don't feel I have wasted any money.

Snydremark wrote in post #14669209
But...how much OTHER gear, that actually DOES something, could you have bought for the money that you've spent on the UV filters? This isn't a cheap hobby, so why spend the money on things that don't improve your shots, or make getting the shots easier?

I find UV filters a great investment not having to worry about cleaning the front element in hazardous shooting conditions. Either you have to clean the filter, or you have to clean the front element. Many times I have salt sprayed all over the filter as well as dust and fine sand. Now which would you like to clean off, the filter which can be removed from the glass and easily cleaned or the glass which required careful time consuming cleaning. Shooting in these hazardous conditions, I have multiple filters on hand, so I just remove the dirty filter and put another clean one on, not wasting any down time cleaning the front element.

Now if you don't shoot in hazardous environments, you don't need the protection. I don't use a UV filter at all if I am out shooting street scenes or events since these are very clean environments. But when I shoot at the beach, desert, rodeos, paintball etc..., you bet the UV filters are attached.

I'd say my landscape photos have one form of filter on for over 90% of them. I have not ever seen any degredation of quality due to the filter. Better yet, my customers have not seen any issues so from my standpoint, all this UV filter bashing saying it degrades image quality is a bunch of gearhead talk by people who don't really take photos, but analyze images to death.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #14669303
I shoot in a saltwater environment most of the time, often times on the boat in the sea spray, so I do need the filters for that (generally even filter haters admit that is a good time to use them) and to complete weather sealing on some lenses, so I don't feel I have wasted any money.

Hogloff wrote in post #14669447
I find UV filters a great investment not having to worry about cleaning the front element in hazardous shooting conditions. Either you have to clean the filter, or you have to clean the front element. Many times I have salt sprayed all over the filter as well as dust and fine sand. Now which would you like to clean off, the filter which can be removed from the glass and easily cleaned or the glass which required careful time consuming cleaning. Shooting in these hazardous conditions, I have multiple filters on hand, so I just remove the dirty filter and put another clean one on, not wasting any down time cleaning the front element.

Now if you don't shoot in hazardous environments, you don't need the protection. I don't use a UV filter at all if I am out shooting street scenes or events since these are very clean environments. But when I shoot at the beach, desert, rodeos, paintball etc..., you bet the UV filters are attached.

I'd say my landscape photos have one form of filter on for over 90% of them. I have not ever seen any degredation of quality due to the filter. Better yet, my customers have not seen any issues so from my standpoint, all this UV filter bashing saying it degrades image quality is a bunch of gearhead talk by people who don't really take photos, but analyze images to death.

So, in heavy use, hostile environments or with lenses that specify requiring a filter to complete sealing (which are very few and far between), great. But the vast majority of folks coming in here and asking about this topic are NOT your guys' kinds of shooters; they're, mostly, new shooters who are have bought or are being pushed to buy UV filters, by sales people who are just looking to line their wallets with high margin accessories. These are also, frequently, very poor quality filters which then lead to the inevitable "why are my pictures coming out poorly".

Aside from that, and Hogloff's scenario of switching clean for new (which is a good one),I have yet to see any real evidence of these filters providing any benefits.

I was one of folks that got sold on UV filters, when I was new to photography. One of the first things that happened for me was running into focus issues with my 100-400, that cleared up as soon as I stopped shooting with the filter on there. It had nothing to do with "analyzing photos to death" when the problems were perfectly visible at normal viewing sizes. From there, on, I stopped using those filters on any of my lenses, and now they sit around collecting dust...pretty pricey coasters.

I've shot at the beach in the wind, on a boat for whale watching, in rain/snow/etc and just cleaned the front element properly when I was done. My lenses are no worse for the wear for those things, without having had the filters on there. I'll have to remember Hogloff's trick, though...great for action environs where the lens may get smeared; sort of like the peel off visor covers for motorcycling...

Snydremark wrote in post #14669856
One of the first things that happened for me was running into focus issues with my 100-400, that cleared up as soon as I stopped shooting with the filter on there.

Unless your filters were coated with oil or mud, care to explain how they can effect focus?

Sometimes I use a filter, sometimes I use a hood, sometimes I use both, sometimes I use neither.

I believe the only bad thing about a filter is that sometimes you can get flare from stray or overly bright light. A hood is made to diminish this though.

Eagle wrote in post #14671206
Unless your filters were coated with oil or mud, care to explain how they can effect focus?

Sometimes I use a filter, sometimes I use a hood, sometimes I use both, sometimes I use neither.

I believe the only bad thing about a filter is that sometimes you can get flare from stray or overly bright light. A hood is made to diminish this though.

Couldn't tell you how, no...but shooting with the filter and then without, I got hazy results with the filter <shrug> B+W multi-coated filter, so not some cheapy. Now, I just use the hood and haven't had an issue since.

I use filters when shooting paintball games just in case..