My take on UV Filters

http://www.camcrunch.c​om/uv-filters/

I know that this has been discussed many times before, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. If you have the time, please take a look at my blog post on UV filters and give me some feedback on how I can improve. Thanks!

I would suggest that you remove the bit about the filter "saving" your lens. The most it may have done is avoid bending the filter thread in the lens. The glass in a filter will break with a lot less force than it often takes to damage a good quality (solidly built, that is) lens.

In order for something to actually prevent damage to a lens, that something needs to be able to reduce the impact force applied to the lens. A filter's ring simply cannot do that because it cannot crush, bend, or break up (actions that absorb energy) on impact. There's absolutely no proof that the filter did anything to prevent damage to your lens' internals.

On the other hand, I've had a metal lens hood seriously fold up when I dropped a camera (a 1967 Nikon F with a 28mm Nikkor lens on it which took a 4-foot spill to concrete lens-first). That definitely absorbed energy and reduced the risk to the lens. Did it "save" the lens? I have no way of knowing how the lens would have fared without the hood mounted and I wasn't about to run a test to prove it. All I do know is that the lens still works fine to this day.

I don't use them anymore. I paid alot of money for the lens and quality glass. I have insurance in case the lens gets damaged.

I'm just bit lazy for selling all my UV filters, also I feel a bit unethical.
Anyway this is the time for me to clean up all of them for good.

You have presented this as factual information, when it is actually a personal opinion. Now, you are perfectly entitled to have, and pass on, this opinion but presenting it as fact is simply maintaining the myth (in many people's opinion) that UV filters are required for protection.

Lenses are far tougher than you make out. The front elements are much, much thicker and stronger than the thin glass in a filter.

You state as fact that "Without a filter on the front element of your lens, your lens is more likely to get damaged". Do you have any evidence of that? If not, you should perhaps have prefaced it with "Many people believe that...", making it clear that it is an opinion, not a proven fact.

In my experience, I have used many, many lenses (without much care, they get bashed about a lot) over 30 years and never yet damaged a front element. Some of my lenses have seen decades of hard use. However, I have never used a protective filter yet, they just do not make economic sense as if I had used them, I would have not only had to buy several filters to start with, the way my gear gets treated I would undoubtedly have broken several and had to replace them by now, as well.

As for your broken filter "saving" your lens, there is no evidence of that. The fact that the filter broke means nothing, it is much weaker than the lens which would almost certainly have survived intact anyway.

I have known filters breaking in such circumstances actually damage the front element as the sharp shards of broken glass get pushed into it and scratch the surface.

I am not saying that there aren't circumstances where a filter might save an element from getting scratched, but they are few and far between and balanced by the fact that a filter might cause scratches if it gets broken.

It is a very small sample, so not very significant statistically, but of all the photographers I know (and I do know quite a lot), most do not use filters. Of those who do not use filters I have never heard them mention a damaged element. Of the few who DO use "protective" filters, two have had a broken filter scratch the front element. That suggests to me that, far from an unfiltered lens being more likely to get damaged, it is in fact the other way around.

This is all my opinion, based on over 30 years of SLR use, I do not present my hypothesis that filters cause more damage than they save as fact. I would prefer to see you present your opinion in the same way, or if you are trying to present the blog as a helpful service to newbies, present both opinions, write a balanced article and let them decide for themselves.

You should also point out that using a lens hood will provide far greater protection than a filter, cost less and improve the image quality.

As Sandpiper already stated, you made your opinion seem as though it is fact. I am from the other side of the argument, that a UV filter is absolutely useless in every aspect, and does nothing other than negatively affect image quality. A speck on a lens (dirt, chip, or whatever), will have less of an affect on an image (as proven countless times) then a distorted piece of colored glass.

I made a short 1 minute video on how to effectively use a UV filter for protection without affecting IQ. You can see it here. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but it seems the folks here don't have a sense of humor, but it sums up how I, and many others, feel about 'UV Protection'. I will be doing a follow up video soon where I'll be smashing up some lenses with and without UV filters to see how much protection they really give.

If you keep filters on your lenses make sure you pack a filter wrench. At a major news event a couple of years ago I saw someone get their camera smacked by another photographer's camera and the impact not only broke the glass in the filter it also damaged the filter ring. No one had a filter wrench and the broken filter could not be removed, rendering the lens useless for the rest of the event. The front element was also at risk from the broken glass.

Dont forget that Canon actually recommend for some lenses in the manual that a filter be used to complete weather sealing. Off the top of my head I believe the 100-400L is one of them.

Well I've been wondering what your POTN name was from your youtube name "CamCrunch".

Getting a little off topic, I do enjoy watching your tutorial videos on mostly "Strobist" photoshoots!

I disagree wholeheartedly with your ASSUMPTION that UV filters protect lenses. Drop or impact damage from broken filters can and has done more damage to the front element, because the filter breaks, than the drop or impact would have done, if it were not sufficient to break the front element. And the BEST filter will break under less impact force than most front elements.

As far as dust/dirt protection goes, filters are right next to worthless. Try this: break your front element with a hammer. That lens will still take a picture with nearly unnoticeable imperfections. I hardly think a stray speck of dust is going to matter. If you don't believe me, cut a 1/4" X 1/4" piece of paper and lick and stick it in the center of your lens. Take a picture. You will never see that obstruction in the photograph.

Even the best filter is another piece of glass, with its own imperfections added to every image. Filters also increase the risk of internal refraction and reflections, neither of which has ever improved a photograph.

I used to use filters on all my lenses. About 6 months ago, I bought a 100-400L. After initially getting really soft shots (with a very good filter) I removed the filter. Problem solved! I tested my 18-135, 135L and 50 1.8, and all of them showed noticeable IQ improvements by removing the filter. Just in case you are wondering, I took all the test shots with the same camera, settings and yes, I used a tripod. I eliminated all the variables I could, with the exception of taking the shots at the same instant. I had to take time to remove the filters. All of those lenses' performance improved when I removed the filters. Notice: 1 L-zoom, 1 L-prime, 1 consumer zoom, and one el-cheapo prime. They all got noticeably better when I removed the UV filters.

Filters do have their place. I use mine when I am shooting in dusty/dirty/windy/wet environments. They serve to protect my front element in extreme (for me) environments. The IQ loss is a fair trade for the protection. Normally I shoot with no filter and have acquired hoods (and use them) for all my lenses except the 28 2.8. That is coming soon. I also use filters for specific situations. ND, GND and circular polarizers have their uses to enhance the shot. A UV filter on a digital camera has NEVER enhanced a shot, ever, period.

I do use UV filters on my lenses when they are mounted on my FILM BODIES. That is not a protective use, it is an IQ use. As you state in you blog, film can be sensitive to UV, and using a UV filter on film cameras helps cut haze and improve resolution.

In my humble (really?) opinion, you should clearly state that your position on filters is opinion. Granted, it is an opinion that many people share, but opinion none-the-less. With that said, I don't want to come off as too bull-headed. The above rant is based on my experiences and is therefore my opinion. Many people also agree with me. Don't waste money on filters for everyday use. If you NEED one, for a specific reason, please use one. If not, you photos will be better without them, when you can SAFELY get away with it.

Considering the videos out there where people are thoroughly abusing the lenses to see how tough they are : Digital Rev driving nails with a lens, a guy taking a framing hammer to the front of a 50 1.8, and some (German I believe) guys bashing the front of the lens with another camera, all without breaking the element (although driving nails did crack one lens), I think there is more than enough evidence that runs counter to your assumption. As a matter of fact, the video with the guys comparing impacts of filtered vs non filtered lenses, the filters broke and severely scratched the front elements, while the bare lenses were fine after identical impacts.

Just noticed this thread. Interesting and pertinent.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1243872

ben_r_ wrote in post #15197030
Dont forget that Canon actually recommend for some lenses in the manual that a filter be used to complete weather sealing. Off the top of my head I believe the 100-400L is one of them.

The top of your head has got it wrong. There are very few lenses where the use of a filter is advised to complete the weather sealing. The 100-400 doesn't even pretend to be slightly sealed against anything. There are a lot more places for weather to enter than through the front element.

"I can tell you from personal experience that a UV filter has saved the life of one of my lenses in the past."

Tommyrot and balderdash.

I wrap my camera body in tissue paper. Yesterday I walked past some long grass and the grass slughtly tore the tissue paper. That's solid proof that it saved the total destruction of my camera body!

ben_r_ wrote in post #15197030
Dont forget that Canon actually recommend for some lenses in the manual that a filter be used to complete weather sealing.

Remind me again - do Canon sell filters? Might explain the recommendation. As Frank says, there are far more places for weather to enter a lens than past the front element. I believe that the "protection" factor is simply preying on folks' susceptibilities and fears without any real evidence - literally no more than a marketing ploy without true substance.

Insurance (painful though the premiums are) is far better protection than any 2mm thin piece of glass in an insubstantial metal rim. Chances are, if the impact is sufficient to break the filter then you'd want to get the lens recollimated anyway - a filter won't pay for that, nor prevent the necessity. If it's merely a matter of the lens filter thread getting 'dinged' that's a pretty easy fix anyway.