UV Filters?

Just wondering how many of you guys leave your UV filters on all the time. I do, and am wondering if I should take them off once in awhile for certain shooting. I know there is a contingency out there that is totally anti-filter but Im just looking for general ideas.

If your in the pro-filter camp and use high quality filters then I'd only remove the filter to replace with a different filter, like a polarizer or Neutral Density filter.

I always leave mine on and put others over it... I'm not a professional so don't listen to my advice

I'm part of the no-filter crowd. I've never experienced any problems with not having them on my lenses. I consider them a con foisted on us by the filter manufacturers and camera salesmen...

I use them near the beach where salt spray gets on everything - that's about the only time I use them. If there's any chance of gunk getting on the front element I'm all for them, otherwise I don't generally bother. Lens hoods 100% of the time, though, that saves fingerprints and keeps most stuff off.

This sort of thread comes up now and again. It depends if you are a better 'safe than sorry' or a 'what the hell' kind of person.

I use a protective filter all the time, Hoya SHMC Pro1 UV filters. If you use any filter, get the top end multicoated ones. Here is some info extracted from manufactures data. http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …ests/Flare/Filt​erData.htm The thing to look for is the lowest reflectance rating.

In almost all cases a filter will not cause a problem with AF or flare. Some flare may occur with a very strong light source in the frame but the top end filters tend to flare later than the lenses. Some lens and filters interact worse than others however, lenses with well sunken front elements will fare less well with a filter. Some tests here http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …LensTests/Flare​/index.htm

I have a habit of accidentally touching the front of my lens with my finger (just clumsy, I guess), so I like using a filter. I did some quick tests with and without the filter and couldn't see a difference, though I didn't do a flare test. My conclusion is that the klutz behind the eyepiece probably harms my photos far more than the glass in front of the lens.

Some good times to consider taking them off is with strong contrast scenes like shooting into the sun and also at night where there are dark areas and bright lights as these scenes can increase flare if you use UV filters.

mtblackdog wrote in post #2650437
Just wondering how many of you guys leave your UV filters on all the time. I do, and am wondering if I should take them off once in awhile for certain shooting. I know there is a contingency out there that is totally anti-filter but Im just looking for general ideas.

This thread has a good example of the problems filters can cause:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=218003
Post #49 is my example.
Lots of links in that thread too.

Another recent thread:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=268028

My experience has been problems are so rare , I'm sticking with good quality filters unless the problem rate increases. I'm not being paid , so I can only let myself down. I'm pretty adventurous where I take my camera, so I can use the protection.

Cheaper lenses are different though - a good filter for the 50 1.8 is about half the cost of the lens so I reckon that's just throwing money away if protection is the only reason to use one. 85 1.8 - I go "naked" unless conditions are really bad , or I want a polariser. The hood stays on permanently.

Practicalities of individual lenses to be considered too - 200 2.8 I go with filter and hood but no cap. The hood is deep and a bit fidly to get the cap on - end up marking the filter with the lens cap or fingers.

I'm definitely in the "better safe than sorry" crowd, and let's just say I'ved dinged at least 3 UV filters over the past 8 years or so...

Yup, better safe than sorry!

-Lik

gkuenning wrote in post #2651748
I have a habit of accidentally touching the front of my lens with my finger (just clumsy, I guess), so I like using a filter. I did some quick tests with and without the filter and couldn't see a difference, though I didn't do a flare test. My conclusion is that the klutz behind the eyepiece probably harms my photos far more than the glass in front of the lens.

There is a solution to the fingers-on-the-lens syndrome. Put a LENS HOOD on the lens. A lens hood mounted on the lens in the proper position for use will do many things for you, in addition to keeping your own fingers off the lens.

A properly designed (for the particular lens) lens hood blocks most stray light that could impinge on the lens and cause flare.

A good rigid lens hood (again, designed for the lens) will provide a lot of physical protection. The hood will absorb much of the energy of the daily banging around that lenses seem to get, greatly reducing the impact forces that the lens itself receives. This extends all the way to actual crash protection. I have personal experience with this - a Nikon F that I dropped onto a concrete sidewalk in 1968. The lens hood folded in, absorbing the crash energy. Other than replacing the hood for aesthetic reasons, the camera and lens did not need any repairs and they work fine to this day.

I have seen many people using filters with no lens hoods, and wonder why they do that.

I have seen people using their camera with a lens hood mounted in the storage position (reversed) on their lens and wonder why they do that.

If you insist on using a filter for "protection" (something I have NEVER done), do yourself a favor and put a properly designed rigid lens hood on the lens any time it is out of the camera case.

The glass in all of my lenses - half of which are 40 years old this year - are in nearly pristine condition, and they have all been used extensively. None have ever worn filters for any purpose other than for creative reasons. All have always had rigid lens hoods mounted whenever out of the case.

I always have a UV filter on my lenses, and only remove them to put a CP on. The main reason for the UV filter is to keep the front element on the lens clean. I'd rather clean a filter than the lens itself. also I live in a seaside town, so salt spray and aerial bombardment by seaguls is a not insignificant risk factor....

None of my lenses have a hood deep enough to keep my fingers off the front of the lens, and my fingers are certainly not that long.

Bottom line is, slightly more than half of us use UV filters for protection. slightly less than half us do not. Each group thinks that while the other might have some valid points, in the main they are plain wrong...

Do whatever you feel most comfortable with. But don't buy cheap filters. Get the best multi coated designed for digital filters you can.

UV filters on every lens I can mount 'em on, only coming off to put a different filter on. Lens hoods are often not deep enough to provide protection from fingers, and never deep enough to protect against wind-blown debris, FOD from prop wash, dogs noses or branches in undergrowth.

have always kept one on all my lenses...

the OP didn't ask if you should use or not use filters. OP asked if you use filters in what circumstances would you remove the filter?