Do UV filters do anything really but protect your glass?

Roy C wrote in post #2270763
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.

Funny you should say that, http://jjf.awardspace.​com/HOYAFilterReview.h​tml

He had problems with a 70-300, im wondering if they affect longer zooms only?

I know my 17-70 isnt degraded by any amount, even pixel peeping doesnt show up any change, its fine at 17 through to 70, but ive never tried anything longer as I dont have a 70-xxx yet.

Nick

coreypolis wrote in post #2268451
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 am with Tigger on this one, I do not use them either

In my 60 years of photography, I have come to the following time tested approach to lens prophylactic measures:

(1) Hoods are designed to shield the lens from unwanted light impingement, not for lens mechanical protection.
However, as their secondary and strictly incidental function, they also offer a degree of protection from a select few mechanical threats the lens might be subjected to.

(2) Protective filters are designed to guard the exposed lens element from many mechanical and practically all chemical threats, while minimizing an adverse effect on lens optical performance.
However, as their secondary and strictly incidental function, filters also offer a minor protection from unwanted lght entering the lens.

Moreover, on a few Canon made lenses like the 17-40, the Company requires that a protective filter be used in order to complete the environmental sealing of the lens.

In summary, one would be wise to use both filters and hoods following their design intent as well as the environmental conditions of lens use.
To me personally, hoods are optional, however, a good UV filter is essential in ensuring lasting performance (investment protection) of my lenses as well as my peace of mind while shooting.

Hoya in their digital range do a protector (totally clear) and a UV filter, would these help in the small number of cases that generate flair? I've just got my first L glass and wondering whether to try them.

MAH wrote in post #2270830
Hoya in their digital range do a protector (totally clear) and a UV filter, would these help in the small number of cases that generate flair? I've just got my first L glass and wondering whether to try them.

Canon do their 'Protect' filters which are just optical glass with no fitering effect at all - I have one on a 135/2L and it certainly doesn't affect the sharpnes on that.

they protect us paintball photographes len's

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

bdpAKAknox wrote in post #2270849
they protect us paintball photographes len's

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

Ouch

bdpAKAknox wrote in post #2270849
they protect us paintball photographes len's
http://img145.imagesha​ck.us …/brokenfilter71​605id6.jpg

My point exactly.

I'm 99% against filters. I'll use one in a harsh environment - salty sea spray, blowing sand, etc., but otherwise it's a bare naked front element free to enjoy the world.

Protection?

Yes, I have excellent protection for my lenses. It's called insurance. I have a policy protecting all my lenses from drops, impacts, crunches, immersions, theft, and other mishaps. Can't do all that with UV filters.

Really, front elements are a lot tougher than they were in the old days.

tiktaalik wrote in post #2271001
I'm 99% against filters. I'll use one in a harsh environment - salty sea spray, blowing sand, etc., but otherwise it's a bare naked front element free to enjoy the world.

Protection?

Yes, I have excellent protection for my lenses. It's called insurance. I have a policy protecting all my lenses from drops, impacts, crunches, immersions, theft, and other mishaps. Can't do all that with UV filters.

Really, front elements are a lot tougher than they were in the old days.

[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 124659 does not exist. ]

Woolburr wrote in post #2270642
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.

There are also plenty of tests to show they don't have any effect or at worse a minimal effect in very strong lighting.

Perhaps you can link some of these detrimental tests I have yet to see one with a halfway convincing methodology.

As has already been said for 99% of occasions a good Hoya SHMC or B+W MRC will have no measurable detrimental effect, those 1% (or less) of occasions are obvious ones and can be avoided if the lens and filter combination are sensitive - as Nick C said we went through all this last week.

When not having a protective filter on will damage you image if when the front element get damaged - perhaps by small incremental scratches perhaps one big one-off.

Many of the anti-filter people come back with "don't worry the scratch will be out of focus you wont see it, you can stick something the size of a pea on the front element and it makes no difference"

Biggest load of **** I have ever heard, talk about hypocrites. Yes you will it will degrade flare resistance and eventually sharpness - optical surface are very flat and have good coating for a reason.

The filter gets scratched you can replace it yourself with no downtime sending the lens away.

Rather than listen to rhetoric read test results.
On AF and Sharpness
On Flare

Nick_C wrote in post #2270666
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

And that is exactly why I DON'T use UV filters (apart from potential image degradation), you have to use a good one and they can cost far more than fixing a lens if anythng should go bad. I have 4 lenses for my DSLRs and 12 for my film SLRs, each would need a filter, as constantly swapping filters is a hassle with the need to make sure that the inner surfaces are spotless and nothing is trapped in between. For all those filters, I could buy another couple of lenses. Even if I swapped filters from lens to lens, I would still need an assortment of sizes.

If you scratch the front element it can be fixed by putting in a new element, you don't have to rush out and buy a new lens. As you say, these elements are much cheaper than the filters, although the labour charge for fitting them will bump the bill considerably of course. If you put a $125 filter on and the worst happens, you have to pay another $125 for a replacement filter. So that is $250, which would probably almost cover the cost of the repair, if you didn't use filters and had the same accident. If you have more than one lens, what are the odds of damaging that many elements?

I'm sorry but the mathematics for me says that I am much better off not using filters, even if I damage an element tomorrow.

In 25 years of photography, often in poor conditions with muck and gravel flying around I have never damaged a front element. Hoods are essential as, when wandering around, the lens can get banged against things but the hoods stop the element contacting anything major. Hoods are also much cheaper and don't have detrimental effects on the image (in fact they improve IQ).

Just my view on things, I know the UV users will continue to use them and the UV haters will still steer clear. We all have our own opinions on these things, this just happens to be mine.

tiktaalik wrote in post #2271001
Yes, I have excellent protection for my lenses. It's called insurance. I have a policy protecting all my lenses from drops, impacts, crunches, immersions, theft, and other mishaps. Can't do all that with UV filters.

So do I, but I know that as soon as you start claiming those premiums will go up, eventuly the insurers will declide to cover you at all. They are there to make money.

sandpiper wrote in post #2271038
If you scratch the front element it can be fixed by putting in a new element, you don't have to rush out and buy a new lens. As you say, these elements are much cheaper than the filters, although the labour charge for fitting them will bump the bill considerably of course. If you put a $125 filter on and the worst happens, you have to pay another $125 for a replacement filter. So that is $250, which would probably almost cover the cost of the repair, if you didn't use filters and had the same accident. If you have more than one lens, what are the odds of damaging that many elements?

You are discounting the cost of downtime and having to get the thing sent off and returned, the risk of loss in transit and general bother factor.

tiktaalik wrote in post #2271001
I'm 99% against filters. I'll use one in a harsh environment - salty sea spray, blowing sand, etc., but otherwise it's a bare naked front element free to enjoy the world.

Protection?

Yes, I have excellent protection for my lenses. It's called insurance. I have a policy protecting all my lenses from drops, impacts, crunches, immersions, theft, and other mishaps. Can't do all that with UV filters.

Really, front elements are a lot tougher than they were in the old days.

Perhaps you just lead a sheltered photographic life compared to some of us.