Filter - UV or Clear or none

[Mark S]

I know there have been posts on other sites as to the benefits of using filters as lens protection. Your thoughts - I use UV on my D500 & Z6 lenses primary to protect the lens - but will use a polarizer upon occasion. Shooting mostly wildlife so don't want to accidentally bump lens on brush etc.

 

[Laurent Dieu]

Hi,

I've UV filters (Only high end quality ones) on all my lenses, macro, zooms and wide-angle, of course not on the 500 f/4 ;-)
And this only to protect the front element of the lenses. I tend to remove them only in low light situations, especially for landscapes. At night for milky way I remove it all the time.

Hope it helps.
Laurent.

 

[Steve]

There was a similar discussion here that may be useful:

UV/Haze filter for the Nikon 500mm PF

Hi Steve, Any recommendations for the above topic. A (B + W) UV 95mm filter is at or above $100.? Do you use any protection on the variety of long lenses that I see in your informative vids?

bcgforums.com

 

[John_DE]

I live near the ocean and I use UV (or clear) filters on most of my lenses. I do not notice a difference between the filter vs no filter, but I have bought higher cost multi-coated filters. However, for protection From bumps etc, I always have my lens hood on. I see no disadvantage in not using a lens hood (except in high winds or perhaps in lighting a macro shot...).

 

[Flyboy]

Despite Steve's very good video about how much protection doth a UV or other filter actually provide to a lens, I do keep UV filters on all of my lenses, because many of today's lenses' front elements are extremely close to the front of the lens, and in my thinking, exposed to damage. Lens hoods...absolutely! How do you tell if your filter is a "good" one? take your binoculars, using only one side, focus, then quickly interpose the filter between the binocular and the subject. Less than good quality will be evident. I got a wild hair once, and did that....ended up trashing about 1/4 of my filters!

 

[Woody Meristem]

For years and years I used a UV filter on all my lenses for protection, but could never see that it did any good. A filter may protect a lens from minor scratches, but it won't protect a lens that takes a significant blow. And if it's not a good (read expensive) filter it will introduce a color cast or distortion or both to images. For the last 15-20 years I haven't used a filter except when I need a polarizer or ND filter.

 

[jeffnles1]

I've seen this discussion on some other camera forums and sometimes it gets ugly. Hope nothing like that happens here. My point of view is it is a personal choice. I use B+W filters over my lenses. I have one lens that has a Sigma filter (I think one of their WR) that came as a promo with a Sigma 100-400 lens.

I have scratched a couple filters over the years and had one break from an impact. As a wildlife and nature photographer, my lenses and camera bodies are out in some pretty rough stuff.

It may hurt IQ some but, honestly, I've never seen any difference. It is awfully hard to test IQ with same lens same scene under same exact light filter on and filter off.

With my Nikon 105mm Micro lens, I shot it for about 2 weeks without a filter as I was determining if I wanted to keep the lens or exchange it. The lens was a keeper so I got a B+W filter. Looking at the photos, I don't see any difference other than later images are better but that had more to do with me learning the strengths and weaknesses of this lens and more importantly the strengths and weaknesses (mostly weaknesses) of my technique. I don't see where the filter made any difference one way or the other.

I know it's not a "definitive" answer but with good filters (yes they can be pricy) the difference, if any, is so minimal you'll never notice it. If you get flare shooting directly into a backlight situation, take it off but I haven't had that problem either.

I hope this discussion was helpful.

 

[dabhand16]

I've gone quite a long time ago from always having a filter on every lens to not using any UNLESS I'm going to be in an environment where there might be flying debris from (say) car rallying/moto x or salt spray etc.

 

[Woodpecker]

I've gone quite a long time ago from always having a filter on every lens to not using any UNLESS I'm going to be in an environment where there might be flying debris from (say) car rallying/moto x or salt spray etc.

I can't agree more and I changed my mind some time ago this year. When I got my 500PF as a Xmas present I order a filter for it straight away, but since I got my 24-70 E I don't use filters per default. At Photographylife they did some short test and they proved that especially cheaper filters might visibly cause resolution of the lens to drop. So my philosophy is:

• Use a filter for protection only if working in critical conditions (like @dabhand16 described)
• Even if a filter is on, the hood is still the best protection specially against the bad bumps, because you still can go through the filter or hit the frame damaging the thread on your lens.
• Get really high quality filter in order to prevent loss of detail, if you get in a situation where you take landscapes or makros under critical conditions.

I would rather scratch a £50 filter than the front of a £2,500 lens any time.

Yes, that's what it's all about, but apart from really cheap low end lenses the hood should always be the sturdier alternative and - as I said- the filter might protect the front lens element to a certain extent, but ruining the front frame or the thread could be just as awkward. Fortunately the only bad incident in that respect so far was when I hit a rock with my lens because I slipped while observing marmots. At this time I didn't have the hood on and the result was an intact front glass element surrounded by a bent filter frame that a "reshaped" thread of my lens. After that there was no chance to get the remainders of the filter off the lens and it became a case for the service guys.

Finally, regarding cleanability - another argument for using filters for a long time - the modern nano coatings these days provide excellent support, also in combination with a trend of having front elements being flatter than for many older lenses and the outside is usually also optimized for easier cleaning. Of course this does not apply to ultra-wide angle lenses. Here the only protecton is being careful .

I think the preferences reagarding protection filters will be just as individually different as for all the other kinds of gear we use. And no matter what way you use to protect your lens, it always up to Murphy to decide whether whta you did was right or enough .

 

[gordon_g]

Personally I don't think another piece of glass is a good thing... BUT I've got no problem if someone else wants/ uses one. (As it should be for everyone). If Im in an area where Im worried about the glass getting scratched I have the cover on.