UV filters for protection?

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).

Darwin

Darwin

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I've always used a UV filter on non-telephoto glass but I just received a 24-70 2.8 and thinking of not filtering anymore. I feel that when paying for good glass, maybe I shouldn't put a filter unless I plan on roughing it. I've used hoya in the past and I don't see a difference, but to be fair I haven't done extensive testing. Do you use UV filters for protection?
 
Member's gallery
Darwin said:
I've always used a UV filter on non-telephoto glass but I just received a 24-70 2.8 and thinking of not filtering anymore. I feel that when paying for good glass, maybe I shouldn't put a filter unless I plan on roughing it. I've used hoya in the past and I don't see a difference, but to be fair I haven't done extensive testing. Do you use UV filters for protection?
Click to expand...
UV filters provide very little protection at all, and can distort an image. I've never used them, and most probably never will. Check out Steve's video on the subject, and I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

 
Member's gallery
See also the tests that Roger Cicala did at Lens Rentals. I believe he has ended up a bit more positive on clear filters, as the cost of replacing front elements has grown.
 
Member's gallery
UV has essentially no effect on digital sensors. UV filters are useful for film cameras because film can be affected by the UV in sunlight.

If a protective filter is believed to be desireable for lens front element protection a clear lens cover makes more sense - but I never use them - just lens hoods.
 
UV and clear filters if high quality transmit 99.5+ percent of the light. I seriously doubt even pros could pass a double blind test to tell which otherwise identical shots had a filter. I'd rather clean the filter than the lens, but with a good lens hood I don't feel at risk without one unless I'm bushwacking or around thermal springs or saltwater, etc.
 
Member's gallery
Darwin said:
I've always used a UV filter on non-telephoto glass but I just received a 24-70 2.8 and thinking of not filtering anymore. I feel that when paying for good glass, maybe I shouldn't put a filter unless I plan on roughing it. I've used hoya in the past and I don't see a difference, but to be fair I haven't done extensive testing. Do you use UV filters for protection?
Click to expand...

I stopped using 'protection' filters long ago. I used to use Skylight filters rather than UV or plain glass. I still carry some in case I find myself in conditions like heavy spray, dust etc, but otherwise never us them.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
UV filters provide very little protection at all, and can distort an image. I've never used them, and most probably never will. Check out Steve's video on the subject, and I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

Click to expand...
Agree with Clark. I stopped using UV filter years ago and never regretted saving $50-100 (for high UV filter) per lens. Also one more glass surface for reflection and more glare
 
Member's gallery
I stopped using them years ago. Now I just carry them in case of dust, rain, mud, etc. I always use a hood, and do a pretty good job of using a lens cap. Perhaps one day I'll actually save money by not buying them.
 
Member's gallery
It’s a question that everyone has a view. The answer is use them if you think it will prevent scratches. It may. If you feel they adversely affect your IQ when shooting, then take it off. It only takes a few seconds to put on or take off.

I was at sea recently and the uv filter kept sea salt from the spray off my expensive lenses….though I still had to clean the lenses thoroughly after the shoot.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
I stopped using them years ago. Now I just carry them in case of dust, rain, mud, etc. I always use a hood, and do a pretty good job of using a lens cap. Perhaps one day I'll actually save money by not buying them.
Click to expand...
how often do you use them? In the course of a year, I might wish I had one a few times at most.
 
Member's gallery
Like a few have already stated, I stopped using them years ago. I used to religiously buy a filter every time I bought a lens. The moment the lens came out of the box, the filter went on and never came off. The biggest disadvantage of them was they were a bugger when I really needed to take them off. Despite the filter, some dust always managed to get in behind the filter on some lenses. However, I read enough articles that convinced me that I'm only risking degrading my image from possible reflections and flare. Also, the front elements are extremely tough and I do remember reading that the front element is often not outrageously expensive to replace compared to some of the internal lenses. It's probably been about 10 years of being filter free now and I've not scratched a single front element. Some claim it offers protection if dropped, so instead I buy insurance rather than filters. Insurance doesn't degrade my images.
 
Member's gallery
I haven't bought one for a new lens since I watched Steve's test. Still use em for transport on the lenses where I own 'em but take 'em off to shoot, tho I've never seen a whit of difference on the simple comparison tests I did at the time I began to question them.
 
Member's gallery
One of those personal preferences things. As per Steve's video, filters are not going to provide a lot of protection from a major strike. They are a heck of a lot easier to clean of fingerprints, mud, dust, seaspray, etc.. I think they can also protect against simple scratches from tree limbs, etc., although many lenses now are pretty tough. Downside is that if stacking a ND or CPL on top of a UV/clear filter, they can bind or make it hard to rotate the CPL. As others note, won't hurt but unsure how much they help.
 
Member's gallery
Haven't used them in at least 20 years. I keep a lens hood on almost all of my lenses which protects them from minor bumps. The only time I would consider using a filter for protection is at the beach or a desert where I wouldn't want to take a chance on scratching the front element when cleaning the sand or dust from the lens.
 
I'd only use them for blowing sand or salt spray. Otherwise haven't used them in 40 years.

Interesting incident: I once dropped a lens that has a built-in protective glass plate to protect the expensive front element. Guess what broke? Yep, the expensive front element behind the protective plate.
 
Member's gallery
RichF said:
how often do you use them? In the course of a year, I might wish I had one a few times at most.
Click to expand...

Hi Rich

Yes - that's my experience too. I don't use them very often, but again - I almost always use the hood and typically use a lens cap . Clear filters are only used with a reason where they add value above just using a hood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hut
Member's gallery
ssheipel said:
I haven't bought one for a new lens since I watched Steve's test. Still use em for transport on the lenses where I own 'em but take 'em off to shoot, tho I've never seen a whit of difference on the simple comparison tests I did at the time I began to question them.
Click to expand...

You bring up a good point. I have used clear filters when I lost a lens cap.
 
Member's gallery
I quit using them too, but do have a couple left from when I did that I may put on if shooting in dirty conditions or when the lens might get splashed. I crashed a mountain bike while carrying a camera and the camera (Canon 5D with 24-70mm F/2.8L) hit the ground hard. The B+W filter ring dented a little and I couldn't get it off the lens. I took it to a camera repair shop where they were able to remove it. They didn't recommend using filters for protection. They get lenses in for repair where the filter broke and caused damaged to the front element and said the glass on the front element is stronger than the filter so it's best to use the hood instead. I generally keep the lens hoods on now to protect the front element. Haven't had any issue. I will see I was impressed that the B+W filter didn't break or crack.
 
Member's gallery
I'm always amazed how often this question is asked. My real job is that of a TV photojournalist. Hanging off the front of my Sony broadcast camera is a beautiful Cannon 18X lens with a built-in doubler (TC). The lens is in the $20K range. It has a middle of the road priced filter. The only reason it's there is we use whatever is handy to clean the lens. We shoot in all types of weather and I can tell you 20 seconds before a live shot in the rain most likely the photog is using his/her shirt sleeve to wipe off the lens!

Obviously UV has no impact on digital cameras. You can argue the impact protection but it's been pretty much proven a filter does little good and maybe harm.

So how do you clean your lens? What kind of goo is your len subjected to? If you're just going out in the woods and carrying all the proper cleaning stuff a filter probably isn't needed. If you're subjecting the lens to salt spray or some other nasty stuff you might want a filter. Me, I have filters on my DSLR lenses because you know, a T-shirt sleeve always works!
 
This is an old article but it sticks with actual measurements of transmission rates. Anyone know of more recent data? For some reason passions run high on this topic, similar to bbf and aperture priority. Obviously putting more glass in front of a lens can't improve image quality, but how much does it degrade an image in a non flare and glare situation? Science seems to say not enough to notice if you stick with top quality (less than 0.5% lost), but some if if you don't. (More than 1.3% lost).

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top