The UV filter debate

Im jsut interested to see the comments that everyone makes about how you should always put uv filters on your lenses. Now ive always known this to be the golden rule and never to be questioned.

But after seening the differences the two can make, whoses actually saved a lense by having a filter on? does it really happen all that often? Generally arent people willing to spend thousands on expensive pieces of glass sensible enough to really look after it?

I used to follow the rule but a year or so ago realized it made a huge difference in IQ with wide angle lenses. Now I hardly use UV filters at all. Someday I'll probably scratch the front element on something but I suspect the cost of getting that replaced will be less than the money I once spent having a UV filter on every lens.

This is an ongoing continuous discussion. Here are some recent threads that will give you more than enough opinions to either confuse the hell out of you or help you make your own decision.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=232465
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=232900

There are others if you search.

For landscape photography, i will take out my UV filter that serves as a protection on normal usage but will attach a hood. The reason i took out the UV is to have a perfect picture without anything infront of the lens to affect my picture.

The rest of the time, UV stay on the lens.

As far as I'm concerned I use a UV filter for protection when I'm in an environment where I feel protection is necessary. I have had a couple lenses that were saved by the UV filter. The most recent happened while shooting a jousting tournament at a Ren Faire. I was low and a horse ran by kicking a rock right into the lens hood of my 70-200 IS. The filter was toast. The lens was fine.

Roger Cicala wrote in post #2183727
I used to follow the rule but a year or so ago realized it made a huge difference in IQ with wide angle lenses. Now I hardly use UV filters at all. Someday I'll probably scratch the front element on something but I suspect the cost of getting that replaced will be less than the money I once spent having a UV filter on every lens.

I'm curious how much Canon and other lens manufacters cost to fix this anyway. I bet it's a lot cheaper then most people expect.

I have filters on all but one lens for protection,I only use top quality filters and se no difference in IQ.

i shoot some paintball so a UV filter is insurence you need to have.
hard balls of paint hitting an element at 300fps is never good.
use a hood aswell.

Edit-

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

I use Hoya Pro-1D filters - these are designed for digital, multi coated, and cost more on a $ per ounce rate than any lens.

I see no degradation of image at the sizes I have them printed at anyway.

And most of all I like knowing that the front element of all my lenses - even the kit lens - is in a virgin un-touched state, and invulnerable to the dribbles and drools of outrageous fortune, small children and pets. As well as grit, dust, sea spray and bird poop.

Gouba wrote in post #2183615
Im jsut interested to see the comments that everyone makes about how you should always put uv filters on your lenses. Now ive always known this to be the golden rule and never to be questioned.

But after seening the differences the two can make, whoses actually saved a lense by having a filter on? does it really happen all that often? Generally arent people willing to spend thousands on expensive pieces of glass sensible enough to really look after it?

are you serious?

are you saying that people willing to spend top dollar are necessarily more sensible?

no, you can't be serious .

ed rader

I've dropped a lens (inside my bag) and blasted the UV to bits while the lens was fine. So I guess that would be an example of when it was a benefit.

For me, I get huge amounts of junk on my UVs, enough to indicate that it's a good thing they're there. And today I kept getting splashed (swim meet) and I'm glad that if I took water up the element, I'd be able to just pull the filter off and clean it. For someone who shoots in a studio or something though, I can see that a UV would be pointless.

Gouba wrote in post #2183615
But after seening the differences the Generally arent people willing to spend thousands on expensive pieces of glass sensible enough to really look after it?

A fool and his money are soon parted - and plenty of us are fools when it comes to buying and caring for our gear. Hang around here long enough and you'll soon read threads about 'I dropped my lens/ camera on to the floor/ into the sea/ walked in the rain all day and got it wet, now it's broken type threads. Accidents happen - usually because people forget to be careful.

A filter is a form of insurance ( I have that too) and like any insurance product, you get what you pay for.

Aside from the argument of lens protection, does a UV filter have any benefit of reducing the haze from UV in a digital camera as it does with film, or does a digital sensor inherently filter out UV.

Mark_48 wrote in post #2184951
Aside from the argument of lens protection, does a UV filter have any benefit of reducing the haze from UV in a digital camera as it does with film, or does a digital sensor inherently filter out UV.

My understanding is that the anti-aliasing filter in front of the digital image sensor blocks far more UV than any screw-on filter ever would. In addition, I believe that the coatings on many if not most modern lenses have UV-blocking properties.

I have not done research to prove either of these statements, but I have read this information in several places. Also, I do realize that just because something is printed or, especially, published on the Internet that it isn't necessarily true.

bdpAKAknox wrote in post #2184519
i shoot some paintball so a UV filter is insurence you need to have.
hard balls of paint hitting an element at 300fps is never good.
use a hood aswell.

Edit-

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

This kind of photography work really demands some special protective equipment - far more durable than conventional filters - to tolerate the virtually intentional impact.

Something like an optically correct Lexan filter or, better yet, something that doesn't even fasten to the filter threads of the lens, would be in order. Why do I suggest using that doesn't fasten to the filter threads? I, for one, would not want the force of the impact transmitted into the working mechanics of my lenses. The protective device I have in mind would replace a bayonet-mounted lens hood and have an impact-resistant "filter" out at the front of it, maybe with additional material extending further beyond the "filter" to block stray light. By mounting to the lens like a Canon bayonet-mounted lens hood (typically on L lenses, at least) any impact forces would be transmitted to the non-moving barrel of the lens and would not get into the zoom and/or focus mechanisms.