Do you use UV Filter on macro lens?

I always use UV filter on all my lenses, but considering that macro work usually needs best IQ possible, and UV filter will always decrease it a bit, my question is: do you use UV Filter on macro lens?

Answered no - I don't routinely use any filters on my macro lenses. AFAIK a UV filter is not needed for a digital sensor. If you are after lens protection then there are some "clear" filters on the market.
Brian v.

Warl0rd,
It depends on what macro lens I am using....
The answer is no for my 100mm f/2.8 macro, I use a hood for protection.
The answer is yes for my MP-E 65mm f/2.8 macro, as I have to get so close to the subject (sometimes too close!!!) that the filter is needed/wanted to protect the lens where a hood would block light.

I asked about UV filter because I think thats what most people use to protect the lens. (also thats what I use mines for).

John, I assume you use the hood for less then 1:1, right? because I think it would get in the way with the flash light, specially when using tubes

Nope. I am very careful when doing macro =) Also the front lens element is really deep on the Sigma 105, if I had a canon macro lens, I would likely use some kind of protective filter.

Warl0rd wrote in post #9392079
IJohn, I assume you use the hood for less then 1:1, right? because I think it would get in the way with the flash light, specially when using tubes

Warl0rd,
No I use the hood all the time even up to 2:1 with my 100mm f/2.8
When at 1:1 I have approx 6" from glass to subject, when using tubes for a magnification of 2:1 I have approx 5" from glass to subject. With no blockage of flash (580ex or 420ex) when mounted on camera Hot-Shoe.
However I do use a much cheaper (although stronger then the Canon model), home made hood.

is it as long as the canon one?

Warl0rd,
Sorry but I don't have the Canon one (for the 100mm f/2.8 lens) to compare it to...

I answered Yes, but only because when I was playing around with the 24 Flash a UV filter got stuck on the threading mount and nobody I've met, nor myself, have managed to wrangle it off of it.


I don't really even know what any of my shots would look like without the filter due to this problem.

John_B wrote in post #9393860
However I do use a much cheaper (although stronger then the Canon model), home made hood.

Stronger isn't better.

Canon hoods are designed to absorb impact as they flex a little and then break, acting as a shock absorber like the crumple zone in a car.

If the hood just shrugs off an impact, all the force will be transferred straight to your lens.

Please be sure to read the various threads on DP Review about the use of filters. I found them under the Canon 7D threads. I think they're probably also to be found in the 100-400 and 70-200 f4IS threads. Many people responding to this question stated that they found that ANY filter caused a decrease in IQ, though that was only with the specified camer and lenses. Just a caveat.

An older thread, but I'll add my few words;

First off I don't use any UV/clear glass protection filters on my macro lenses:
Sigma 150mm macro - I use this with the hood attached all the time so that gives me protection against most possible damage that might come toward the lens. In my experience it also has little effect on the capture of insect shots as the longer range means you are a decent distance back to start with.
When using my raynox to get closer I effectivly do have a filter attached to the lens and I find that with small working distances that I am often working far more carefully so chances of something hitting the front are reduced - and with the DCR 250 attached chances are part of the filter rim or attachment will hit things long before the glass does.

Sigma 70mm macro - the hood for this is small and the lens front glass is already within a recess upon the front of the lens, so to be honest I have never really found a big use for the hood. Further being as the whole setup has to get much closer and the front extends when focused at 1:1 I prefer the hood off for a bit more room at the lens end.

Canon 65mm macro - for me the tiny front element size and the small working distances mean that I am again often working very close and carefully - and that the outer rim of the lens is far more likley to hit things before the front glass.


Further as to the points of using protection filters or not on glass I have this to say:
1) For common use I don't, personally use them; but instead I do use the lens hood on most of my glass (that means barring the short lenses and the ones canon didn't give to me!) as my first line of protection. If I were shooting in beach conditions (sand and saltwater spray); out at sea on rough waters, in bogs etc. - ie places where mud;grit;dirt might be flying around then yes afilter that can be quickly wiped clean is a worthwhile component to the setup

2) If one does use a protection filter us the best quality one you can afford (not nessessarily the most expensive though it normally comes down to that). Any glass, lighting conditions, wind etc... can cause degradation to perfect image quality from a lens and camera setup; and testing your lens and camera with a protection filter in a controled studio shoot can often show up slight differences in image quality between the two.
However here we come to the idea of perfection and usabilty - many lenses (esp high quality macro ones) can take a bit of a beating to their perfect image quality and still yeald very usable results* for the photographer. However outside of a studio testing situation other factors (eg wind, poor lighting) will have far more contribution than a good quality protection filter to the end shot. That is at least true for the good quality filters (heck people use Teleconverters and still get usable results and that is far more glass in the setup) whilst low grade ones will degrade far more noticably.
*this of course depends on what your output of your photography is (eg prints, posters, internet) and is only something you can decied.