Steve Perry - UV Filters

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Roy said:
in the field lenses get dirty and cleaning a UV filter is better than scrubbing the coating from an expensive lens ... 🦘
Click to expand...
Much less dirty to not at all dirty in most photographers normal use if fluorine front coated as most new ones are - whereas filters are often not fluorine coated.

It is probable those who "scrub" there gear might have to replace front filters frequently - rather than "more average photographers" using a straightforward lens wipe on a Florine coated lens front element.

Everybody makes there own decision - I do not "scrub"my gear.
 
Member's gallery
For me, protective filters have over the very long years mostly prevented damage to the threads as well as chemical and weather elements damage. I have never experienced breakage. I have tripped and fell with the lens of my camera going straight into the dirt but the filter cleaned right up without allowing the lens to be affected. (The lens hood also provided protection). Bad things happen and the extra precaution for me has been worth it especially since my time in the field has never been cut short.
 
Member's gallery
Shutterbug fan 1 said:
For me, protective filters have over the very long years mostly prevented damage to the threads as well as chemical and weather elements damage.
Click to expand...
For me - over 59 years - I have had no damage prevented by a front filter.

About 25 years ago an arrow from a bow and arrow went through a filter and damaged the front element - at the time a new front element cost about £20.
I have had a a £200 loss for transit damage in an aircraft hold and one for about £900 during an attack by a Catacara in the Falklands - neither of which a filter would not have prevented.
After the bow and arrow incident I gave up on front filters for protection - saving maybe £750 + on about 15 front filters for the lenses I have that accept them.
Insurance for £750,000 for 12 months including theft and impact damage can cost about £750 in the UK - and some would say is better value for money.
Everybody makes their own decision - I know for me I wasted a lot of money using front filters during general use up to about 25 years ago.
 
Member's gallery
Len Shepherd said:
For me - over 59 years - I have had no damage prevented by a front filter.

About 25 years ago an arrow from a bow and arrow went through a filter and damaged the front element - at the time a new front element cost about £20.
I have had a a £200 loss for transit damage in an aircraft hold and one for about £900 during an attack by a Catacara in the Falklands - neither of which a filter would not have prevented.
After the bow and arrow incident I gave up on front filters for protection - saving maybe £750 + on about 15 front filters for the lenses I have that accept them.
Insurance for £750,000 for 12 months including theft and impact damage can cost about £750 in the UK - and some would say is better value for money.
Everybody makes their own decision - I know for me I wasted a lot of money using front filters during general use up to about 25 years ago.
Click to expand...
Stopping an arrow? Now that begs a story.
 
Member's gallery
sportmaster said:
Question: Do you use UV filters on your lens?
Click to expand...
If you cant see any negative optical effect on your images using a UV filter then using a UV filter is a good idea.

I found a UV filter effected my long zoom 150-500 and some smaller primes.

That said.......

I bought 2 x 77mm B+W limited edition Gold MRC UV filters, i got them for $70 AUD each, NEW from a wholesale dealer importer, lovely box and presentation.

The A B and Blind Test...............
Ok on my 24-70 2.8 G and D3X in sunlight shooting a brick wall building and roof with a blue sky above, the difference was measurable/noticeable but small.
With the filter on it added a tiny little micro colour contrast, it was like using a very sublet gentle polarizer to describe the difference, it of course not a polarizer.

The mortar between the bricks when zoomed in seemed to have nicer more natural colour and contrast detail, is that possible ?, well its the only way i could describe it.

As to the A B comparison of images side by side standing back looking at them on a 30 inch screen, the filter on was ever so slightly noticeable and the preferred look even in the blind test.

So many people say they cant see the difference or benefit and that seems often to be the case, well i feel the variable in all that is the glass, camera, graphics card, and screen they use as well as the type of filter in question.
My self, i give it a tick and use only this particular B+W limited edition Gold MRC UV filter for positive optical benefits outdoors.
ie: if its adding and not taking away anything its a win.


Only an opinion
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
No. It seems pointless for the lens designers to use all these exotic glasses and coatings and then slap a cheap plain piece of glass on the front. Even clear glass will degrade the light transmission.

I will use a occasionally use a polarizer or ND filter to achieve a certain effect.
 
Member's gallery
ccirelli said:
Only if I'm shooting in precipitation, or around sand / dust with windy conditions. If a lens is out / in use, there's a lens hood on it always. When the lens hood is off or reversed for transport or storage, the lens caps is on always.

Steve's video was the deciding factor for me, and a recent YouTube vid by Jan Wegener on the effects of UV's on image quality reminded me that I'm on a good path.
Click to expand...
I agree that UV filters don't really add yet in most cases detract, no question, and that's my experience first hand, so yes i wouldn't use one especially on a zoom.
Strangely i have no idea why i did find an exception with the B+W limited edition Gold MRC UV filter on my 24-70 2.8 G in sunny conditions..........
I assume if i put the filter on something like the highly resolving 70-200 2.8 fl with superior optics it may more than likely show slight degradation or image sharpness loss.
I will give it a test run soon, i think i will be right.

Only an opinion
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
O said:
I agree that UV filters don't add yet in most cases detract, no question, and that's my experience first hand, so yes i wouldn't use one especially on a zoom.
Strangely i have no idea why i did find an exception with the B+W limited edition Gold MRC UV filter on my 24-70 2.8 G in sunny conditions..........
I assume if i put the filter on something like the highly resolving 70-200 2.8 fl with superior optics it would more than likely show degradation or image sharpness loss.
I will give it a test run soon, i think i will be right.

Only an opinion
Click to expand...
I watched both videos and yes interesting, Steve's comprehensive test is compelling.

I have never experienced ghosting or flair with the 2x filters i have (B+W MRC) Gold edition with 4 coatings.

I also have some Rodenstock and Ziess 67mm polarizers and some UV filters i was given. I haven't tested the UV filters out.

Short answer, in general if have found UV filters don't do anything much at all and most effect sharpness/detail to a varying degree, but i do believe there is the odd exception where a genuine quality piece can be used with no real disadvantage.

Looking forward to testing out the filters i have, especially on my 70-200 fl and 100mm f2 Ziess lens.

Only an opinion
 
Member's gallery
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to add my 2 cents following a recent experience. When I bought my 500mm PF, the salesperson advised me to get a filter to protect the lens. I later saw Steve's video making a case for not using filters, but I couldn't bring myself to remove it since I'd paid good money for the filter. (I know, it was chump change relative to the cost of the lens, but still.)

Flash forward to this past weekend. I had my Z8 + 105mm over my shoulder and was wearing my padded camera backpack containing my 500mm PF lens. When I went down, I managed to keep the camera from hitting the ice and thought nothing more of the incident beyond a sore derriere. It wasn't until several days later when I went to use the 500mm lens that I discovered that the "protective" filter had shattered beneath the lens cap. All those sharp shards of glass were rattling around next to the lens. Amazingly, the lens was fine, but good riddance to the utterly useless filter. Protective, my eye!
 
Member's gallery
The front element on my 300 2.8 VR II is sacrificial and about $200
I think if your doing a dusty or dirt flying sport like a car rally like Dakah, or a Rodeo and your needing to clean and avoid flying dirt, a clear filter is handy.
 
Member's gallery
When there is a strong wind blowing and the possibility of dirt or sand hitting the front element of the lens a UV filter is a wise precaution. Removing dirt and sand from the front of the lens element without scratching the lens coating is something I would prefer to avoid entirely. I can buy a good quality 77mm filter for $40 and it takes up no appreciable space in my camera bag.
 
Linda D. said:
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to add my 2 cents following a recent experience. When I bought my 500mm PF, the salesperson advised me to get a filter to protect the lens. I later saw Steve's video making a case for not using filters, but I couldn't bring myself to remove it since I'd paid good money for the filter. (I know, it was chump change relative to the cost of the lens, but still.)

Flash forward to this past weekend. I had my Z8 + 105mm over my shoulder and was wearing my padded camera backpack containing my 500mm PF lens. When I went down, I managed to keep the camera from hitting the ice and thought nothing more of the incident beyond a sore derriere. It wasn't until several days later when I went to use the 500mm lens that I discovered that the "protective" filter had shattered beneath the lens cap. All those sharp shards of glass were rattling around next to the lens. Amazingly, the lens was fine, but good riddance to the utterly useless filter. Protective, my eye!
Click to expand...
The optical design of the Leica 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R includes a flat protective plate in front of an exotic-glass front element. The protective plate is built-in and cannot be removed. Guess what broke when I dropped my lens? Yup, the US$1600 exotic-glass front element. The 'protective' plate was unscathed.
 
Member's gallery
I used to be a religious user of protective UV filters on all lenses. Until I saw Steve's very comprehensive video showing why UV filters don't protect and sometimes cause problems. That video was posted in August 2015. Since then I have not used a UV or other protective UV filter, except in rare cases where I am in very dusty, windy or salt water spray conditions. I almost always do use a lens hood. And I have yet to damage or scratch the front element of a lens.
And if I ever do damage the front element of a lens, it will probably be a lot cheaper to have the element replaced by Nikon that it would have been to buy a quality protective filter for every lens that I have.
 
Member's gallery
I never use a UV, or protective filter. I do install the lens hood whenever I remove the lens cap. That is all the protection I have ever needed.
 
Member's gallery
Ivan Rothman said:
I used to be a religious user of protective UV filters on all lenses. Until I saw Steve's very comprehensive video showing why UV filters don't protect and sometimes cause problems. That video was posted in August 2015. Since then I have not used a UV or other protective UV filter, except in rare cases where I am in very dusty, windy or salt water spray conditions. I almost always do use a lens hood. And I have yet to damage or scratch the front element of a lens.
And if I ever do damage the front element of a lens, it will probably be a lot cheaper to have the element replaced by Nikon that it would have been to buy a quality protective filter for every lens that I have.
Click to expand...
Same! I keep some for occasional beach or desert use and that is it.
 
Member's gallery
I use Nikon Neutral Clear (NC) filters whenever the environment is challenging such as:

1) Sea spray or sand blowing in the wind
2) Airshows - the spent aviation fuel fumes stick to the front lens element and are hard to clean off
3) When visiting Iceland, from experience that volcanic grit is harmful to camera gear

There is a good review of impact on image quality available at

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

The Nikon NC filters get a good score.
 
Member's gallery
Never, never, never!!! I'd use one in an ocean environment to keep crud off my front element and I occasionally use a CPL or variable ND filter when appropriate, otherwise a filter is never put on my lens. There are lens shade on all of my lenses -- they protect the front element.
 
Member's gallery
I always use clear (i. e. non UV) filters on all of my lenses. I use high quality (B&W) filters. I realize in certain situations I may take an IQ hit, but I am willing to do so. I also use lens hoods on all of my lenses., but despite what some people might think, the lens hood can only provide so much protection.

Late last year, while hiking through some heavy brush with my D850 and 200-500 attached I noticed a large deep scratch on the filter. This despite trying to be careful and point my lens down, and using the lens hood. I was able to take off the filter, purchase a new one, and I was good to go, as opposed to sending the lens to Nikon for non-warranty repair. I guess if you don't hike through brush it might not be an issue., but if you do the lens hood by itself is no guarantee of protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top