Steve Perry - UV Filters

[Archibald]

I don't use a filter on any lens except if there is a particular reason for doing so.

Those simple small flat pieces of glass seem very expensive for what they are. I have been told that camera shops sell them for extra profit, especially to nervous camera newbies.

 

[Patrick M]

I go on expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctica, and often the weather is inclement and I’m in zodiacs. All my lenses have filters on the front. I’d rather get salt and stuff on a filter and potentially ruin that, than the front element of my lens. Each has their view. i respect that. It takes just a few seconds to remove the filter….when I feel it’s an issue.

 

[marc]

Never, (a UV) just a sales pitch. that still seems to cycle thru from the SLR, DSLR days and now to ML.
It's the equivalent ....would you like fries with that!

 

[jim0379]

In addition to desert and beach scenarios, consider using a filter when near thermal / volcanic areas like the geysers in Yellowstone. The steam from fumaroles is just sulphur-smelling water vapor, but if the feature is spitting water droplets, the droplets often contain dissolved silica, which will precipitate out and stick to glass like a laminate spot of glass. Can be almost impossible to remove.

 

[Vincent_VdB]

In general do zo use the brilliant Hoya protection HD Nano filter on my 24-70, 100-400, 105 micro, … and saved my front element a few times already. Of course not on my tele primes like the 500 & 600mm lenses.
Never noticed in a side by side comparison a difference in IQ.
As always with questions asked in forums is there never a clear answer

 

[Archibald]

In general do zo use the brilliant Hoya protection HD Nano filter on my 24-70, 100-400, 105 micro, … and saved my front element a few times already. Of course not on my tele primes like the 500 & 600mm lenses.
Never noticed in a side by side comparison a difference in IQ.
As always with questions asked in forums is there never a clear answer

Most of the time a filter won't cause a noticeable difference in IQ. You can even take photos through ordinary window glass, and there will be little impact (as long as reflections are controlled). But in scenes with bright light sources there will be artifacts caused by re-reflection off the sensor and filter. You see these effects if the sun is in the picture, or in night photography. This effect doesn't seem as strong any more with modern lenses, so YMMV. It's still best to remove the filter in these situations.

 

[Flyboy]

Not usually. However, I'll make an exception if I'm in an environment with blowing sand or sea spray (and I'm using a lens that supports a filter).

I watched Steve's excellent Youtube presentation on filters. I chose to continue using them. Reason 1: a hood and filter saved a lens back in the film days.
2: Lens front elements today are mostly closer to the front ends of current lenses, and more likely to be damaged, IMO.
3:Good quality filters can be purchased, but some of the "garden variety" filters are also very good, which can be determined by a "binocular test"
4:Good-quality Binocs; use one side, filter over the big end...look through quickly so the eyes don't compensate...poor sharpness can be seen. I did that and had to trash about 25% of my filters. Ymmv, but, I've not noticed any less sharpness or detail from my lens/filter combos.

 

[Patrick M]

I guess, I don’t know, but I shoot for me and the family. If I shot professionally I’d be careful of what filter I use, IF indeed I’d use them. But this is moot. If I were indoors, then I’d not be worried about sand, dirt or sea spray (probably). Outdoors, I can always remove the filter. Depends on circumstances. Personally I keep a filter on every lens, knowing I can remove them easily enough. I even use Kase magnetic filters if shooting birds from a boat.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Personally I keep a filter on every lens, knowing I can remove them easily enough.

Everybody makes their own choice.
I photograph the other way round without filters, knowing I can add a filter in harsh shooting conditions.
However I use clear filters for this - and never a UV - because of the propensity of UV filters to prevent some magenta/blue part of daylight reaching the sensor.

 

[eaj101]

UV filters were first made available because some film stocks responded too much to UV, such as at higher altitudes. (Camera stores rapidly found filters to be a profitable add on and encouraged their use). Not an issue with digital. In addition, to me it makes little sense to buy and expensive lens and put a filter over it (which the lens wasn't designed for), much less an inexpensive one.

However, the rationale regarding corrosive/dirty environments seems persuasive to me, so around the ocean, around thermal features such as a Lassen or Yellowstone, or any where where with caustic mist or blowing sand I do put a filter on, usually a polarizer. If I don't want a polarizer, I will put a UV filter on. I don't carry a full set of UV filters though so I use step-up rings. As noted, it's a lot easier to clean or replace a filter as opposed to the front element of a lens.

 

[Len Shepherd]

UV filters were first made available because some film stocks responded too much to UV,

History now but colour film was susceptible to "long" UV (when it was present in the atmosphere) until about 1980 and black-and-white film was very susceptible to UV until about 1990.

The cement used to join lens elements into groups, most types of a glass, most types of multi coating and digital sensors stop a wide range of long UV.

As the mark up on UV filters can be as high as 500% some retailers naturally try to sell these highly profitable items even though for more than 30 years they have generally been photographically unnecessary.