Do UV filters do anything really but protect your glass?

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2271042
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.

Mishaps are rare. Damage to front elements in benign evironments are even rarer.

And then there are some lenses that it's impossible to get protective filters for. I've got a couple with huge protruding front elements and no lens hoods. Outside of hard blowing sand, sea spray, volcanic ash, and the like I don't worry about it. Front elements are not easily scratched these days.

The insurance people are there to make money but so are the camera and filter people who sell you filters.

PaulB wrote in post #2271089
Perhaps you just lead a sheltered photographic life compared to some of us.

Please re-read where I said I use filters in harsh evironments.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2271050
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.

I'm sorry, but I am not discounting anything. Downtime is always a potential problem, I could drop a lens and break it completely (I have had one drop from the back of a speeding car whilst doing an action shoot, a UV wouldn't help there), but I am not a professional so it would just be a short lull in my fun, it wouldn't cost me any money. Besides, I have other lenses so I wouldn't be unable to shoot.

I currently have three lenses on my 'wants' list, as money becomes available to get them. I am not going to choose to buy a bunch of filters instead of a new lens, just to reduce the possibility of me being without a particular lens for 2 or 3 weeks.

As I said, we all evaluate the pros and cons of using UV filters and come to our own conclusions. I agree, in a case of damage it would be nice to just be able to take off the filter and carry on, rather than send off the lens for repair. You are correct that it would be more hassle to repair the lens. The bottom line is that I would need to buy several filters, good ones will cost a lot of money (far more than a repair that I may never actually have to get done). As an amateur, shooting purely for fun, I have to allocate limited resources where I see the most benefit. To me, filters don't offer any real benefit other than possibly preventing a little hassle. A new MP-E 65mm lens on the other hand will cost me less and open up a whole new area of photography for me. I know where I would prefer to spend my money.

I fully accept your view, it just isn't one I share for me personally, we all evaluate the pros and cons differently.

I wouldnt waste money on insurance unless I owned VERY expensive gear, you pay every year & most likely will never need to make a claim.

I agree that if you own lots of lenses then UV filters for all can be expensive, but most of us dont have 12+ lenses.

From what I can see UV filters are either love em or hate em, some people tend to snub them & even sound a little UV phobic!!

This is something that can go on forever, I know & can honestly provide proof that in my setup a UV has totally ZERO effect on my images, the summer is over now here but out of every shot I took not once have I had to take my UV off because of any problems.

The protection side is without question, some can say they have gone for 30 years or whatever & never had any problems, all I can say is thats very good, but there are times when things can happen no matter how careful you are, I know my UV was damn hard to get clean after being on a beach in Spain last year, greasy specs, sea mist, it was a mess!! it took a few goes with a cleaner fluid to get it sparkling again, my lens however was nicely protected.

Im extremely fussy with my equipment, maybe thats why I choose to protect the lens with a replaceable filter, im not saying those that dont use them chuck their gear around, but to say that IF they had any problems they would send it away for repair under the insurance, well lets just say I wouldnt want my lens being put through the postal system & pulled apart by a not so fussy repair engineer, even a slight mark & I am upset, im obsessed!! lol..

In this country you have to pay an excess as well with insurance, they wont pay it all for you, so I dont bother with that, its not a con but its not exactly cost effective, but then I take care of my stuff so insurance isnt needed.

Nick

Nick_C wrote in post #2271111
From what I can see UV filters are either love em or hate em, some people tend to snub them & even sound a little UV phobic!!
Nick

From what I see some people tend to love them and even sound like they'll cure all the world's problems

Oh yeah, and if you don't use one you're an evil heretic who should be burned at the stake.(1)

At least that's what I see

(1) Or at least make vaguely insulting insinuations about your skills, as witnessed already on this thread. I've never seen anti-filter folks do that.

Nick_C wrote in post #2270774
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

I checked AF action, sharpness, contrast and flare with my 300 f4L IS and found no effect except for some strong secodary reflections of what was obviously a lens only reflection. Showing up presumably because the lens front element is very recessed - no effect on sharpness and AF though

Even those reflections would only show with the sun in the frame, possibly a very strong specular reflection off water although this had never been a problem in real life.

So one wonders is it longer zooms rather than primes affected. I know someone on this forum with a 70-200 f2.8 complained they had poor AF performance until they removed the protective filter.

Thing is I can't imaging what the physical effect could be that would mess with zooms and not primes, OK the zooms probably have a few more optical components that could give rise to slightly more internal reflections but it doesn't sound enough.

I fail to see a sound technical rationale for people chosing hoods over filters for mechanical and environmental protection of their lenses.

Therefore, what remains is perhaps the appeal of apparent lens enlargement by virtue of a hood mounted. Thereby some people may hope to gain that coveted public attention. Also, a hooded lens might impart that pro look they seek ?

Wow. It's just like religion. If you don't believe then it's open season on the put-downs

sandpiper wrote in post #2271038
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.

Ditto - except change the number to 40-plus years in photography.

I don't even own any UV filters and still have no damaged (though heavily used) lenses.

tiktaalik wrote in post #2271226
Wow. It's just like religion. If you don't believe then it's open season on the put-downs

Steady on TickTack....we are just speaking lightly.

SkipD wrote in post #2271238
change the number to 40-plus years in photography.

Ditto....however, change number to almost 60 years.

PetKal wrote in post #2271239
Steady on TickTack....we are just speaking lightly.

Sorry PetKal, but you don't get off that lightly. An insult delivered slyly and laughingly is still insulting.

tiktaalik wrote in post #2271249
Sorry PetKal, but you don't get off that lightly. An insult delivered slyly and laughingly is still insulting.

An "insult" ( ) is often more a matter of perception than delivery.

PetKal wrote in post #2271256
An "insult" ( ) is often more a matter of perception than delivery.

Well, you seem to be insinuating that people who use lens hoods instead of filters do so because they crave attention and want 'something' to be bigger.

Ok, maybe it's all fun. As a female, I don't want a 'something' always on myself so I suppose I can't judge where the humor starts.

tiktaalik wrote in post #2271278
Well, you seem to be insinuating that people who use lens hoods instead of filters do so because they crave attention and want 'something' to be bigger.

Ok, maybe it's all fun. As a female, I don't want a 'something' always on myself so I suppose I can't judge where the humor starts.

Unless folks volunteer that information or it is somehow implied in their name etc, people generally have no clue of a member's gender around here.
Similar considerations apply to age, race...you name it.

However, I am sorry you have found my jocularly intended comment objectionable.