Do UV filters do anything really but protect your glass?

thats right.. do they do anything else but just protect your glass??

Sure. They can give you nasty flare and unwanted reflections too

Photographically, no. The 'absorbs UV' thing is just .. whatever. I treat them as clear filters.

If you are buying UV's to keep on your lenses all the time (I do that), buy GOOD ONES. Hoya S-HMC and B+W MRC's are the ones to get.

It is psychological? Probably. But I feel better having them on, so.... that's what does it for me peace of mind counts for a lot. I hate cleaning the actual surfaces of the glass, if I screw up, it's time to beg Canon for a front element replacement.

Flare is generally not a problem except in one rare circumstance - night shooting with very bright highlights in the frame on an ultrawide angle lens. I generally remove them before going out on night shoots.

technically yes they can reduce haze. they can aslo create it.


there will always be 2 schhols of thaught on UV filters. I'm in the boat that doesn't ever use them

I think that with the coatings on modern lenses UV radiation should not be an issue. The only time I use them is when I am shooting in adverse conditions. Other than that I go naked.

UV filters were more important for film slr's. Just as the 80A and 80B filters were.

With the advent of awb and cwb on dslr's, The function of a UV filter has been reduced to lens protection. Other cons have been listed above.

Ken

verty wrote in post #2268361
thats right.. do they do anything else but just protect your glass??

yes. they allow me to sleep easy at night !

ed rader

verty wrote in post #2268361
thats right.. do they do anything else but just protect your glass??

No but ...

I smashed a UV protector once. No lens damage.

Actually I now tend to use hoods.

Mike.

verty wrote in post #2268361
thats right.. do they do anything else but just protect your glass??

They liberate money from your wallet too. Filters only offer protection in the extremes....Hoods are the ticket in the protection game.

Im suprised by the number of people who believe that using a hood provides better protection than a UV.

As always some will disagree but read any photo mag & you will find the same opinions, UV filters are to protect the lens, as for filtering UV well I dont see any difference, ok we dont all go by what magazines say, after all its in their own interest to promote these companies that advertise with them, but I have used UV filters since the dawn of man! lol, ive never had any problems at all.

Hoods alone will not provide ANY protection to your lens apart from possibly bumping into an object when doing macro stuff, they are invaluable for stopping flare but if your at the beach with all the salty & potentially corrosive sea spray a lens hood will do nothing, nor will it stop you having to clean the front element on a regular basis.

My advice if you want it is this, forget about what they SAY a UV does, in real life shots you wont know if its cutting down on UV rays or not, buy a decent one, not THE best that money can buy but not the cheapest, I use the Hoya G Series, its about middle of the road in pricing, try some test shots & see what you think.

Despite what some will say there are no losses in sharpness or contrast by using a UV, we had all this out in another post a few weeks back with test shots etc.. & never got anywhere, some sweared by using UV's, some said they degrade quality, its up to you, I personally feel better when I go out with a UV, ive done night shots & also ones with the sun almost in frame on the sunniest day we had in the UK, not a problem, no flare & my shots have great contrast, on very extreme cases when the sun is at a particular angle I can get some spots of flare on the UV, but when I took it off I still have the same flare areas but they were a little smaller.

I find that a UV with a lens hood is an ideal setup, my front element has never been cleaned & I took the filter off the other day & the UV is doing a great job of keeping dust out, not a spec in there, while the hood does a good job of stopping lens flare on sunny days, ive not had any reason to take the UV off, & while you might look at my equipment & think that its not exactly top spec stuff, im a fussy bugger & if a UV was degrading my images even by a tiny amount, it would annoy me & I would think about going naked!! but it hasnt.

Give it a try & take what everyone says with a large pinch of salt, do some tests, im sure like many of us you will find no image degredation by using one, there have been some extreme examples posted where a UV has totally recked the image clarity, but these are very rare & not the norm..

Nick

Nick_C wrote in post #2270620
there have been some extreme examples posted where a UV has totally recked the image clarity, but these are very rare & not the norm..

Nick

Please show me the images wrecked by NOT using a UV filter. There are plenty of tests and reviews that show that filters do have a detrimental effect on images. Any time you add something to an optical equation that was not designed in from the very start, you are going to have some image degradation. This applies not only to filters, but to tele-converters as well.

You wont find any images "wrecked by NOT using a UV" as you say, they wont alter your images at all, they are totally neutral.

Here is the link showing a UV at its worst! ive never ever seen such bad results as this, its pretty unfair of the whole UV or no UV debate.

Somebody said that their 17-40 instructions recommends using a UV.

I think lens manufactures know that people will want to use filters, forget about UV filters, many use polarisers & such, I cant see one more bit of glass affecting the image at all, there are already around 13 pieces of glass in a lens & when you weigh up the price of a top quality filter its 10x the cost of just one of those elements in a lens, price wise a top quality UV could possibly be better glass than what is in a good lens (in theory).

Nick

Sorry, forgot to post the link!
http://jjf.awardspace.​com/HOYAFilterReview.h​tml

I clean my UV filter with whatever i have handy (tshirt, napkin, kleenex) and do so several times when i shoot near the beach, water fountains etc... the spray accumulates.

I wont clean an L lens with a paper towel or a tshirt... so it allows me to be carefree about my glass.

I prefer not to use them but i have to sometimes. I have had the reflection in low light on a wide angle lens thing happen to me as explained above.. a ton of PP to fix the reflection.


here are a couple quick and dirty shots of the good and bad about UV fer me!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Canon specifically state for the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L:
".....a filter must also be attached to the front of the lens for complete protection."
I'm sure than Canon wouldn't state that if doing so 'wrecked' your images!

Also the longer lenses - 300/3.8L upwards - have a rear mounted clear filter fitted as standard. This filter is part of the design and must be fitted - or replaced with another filter, such as a Polariser - to maintain optical integrity.

I know of lenses which have escaped serious damage through having a front mounted filter fitted.
Moral to this? If you mollycoddle your kit you may get away without using a filter as protection. I know that I'd rather clean grit and water off a replaceable filter than off the front element of the lens.

As far as degrading IQ I think it depends on the lens. I have used the same uv filter on a 17-40 and 400mm f5.6. On the 17-40 I cannot see any drop in IQ whereas on the 400 prime there is a definite drop in IQ. Not sure why this should be.