Do you use UV filters on your lenses?

Juanma · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 257 Location: Cambrils, Spain

In the AF world, it's very common to protect the usually expensive lenses with UV filters (I do it with my AF lenses).

But, what do you do on your MF lenses? They often are the same price as filters themselves. Do you protect them with a filter? Are you a purist that forbids himself to use filters to avoid loss of quality? Do you use filters on some lenses and not use them on others?

I would like to know your opinion. Very Happy

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

I put UV filters on all the lenses that I buy new, or on used ones that are really like new (meaning no sign whatsoever, not even on the barrel), especially if they come with the box.

However, I do feel that even the best UV filters such as the B+W ones, do impact the quality, albeit minimally.
Not to mention the really bad filters.
I notice this especially with lateral sunlight (decrease of contrast).
The hood can help but not on all lenses you can put a UV and a hood at the same time without vignetting to occur.
Having that said, it also much depend form your editing habits.
If you are the kind who tweaks photos a lot, with curves etc,, it's just laughable to worry about the UV filter. Two passes of digital editing do to the resolution of your images, much more damage than any UV filter could possibly do.
If instead what you do is only slight exposure changes in RAW program, creating a final photo that is very much like it was recorded, then even the minimal impact of a good UV filter can mean a difference.
For my important images, I never wear UVs on lenses.
Of course, when you shoot on the beach or under the rain, you'll want one - but in those cases, you usually will not use your best lens.

-

Nelson · Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject:

I use no filters on Af or MF lenses.... even when i used my 70-300 APO on the beach. (but next time i should, it is savier Smile

)

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

Lately I put a b+w digital on one of my lenses and I suspect drop of performance in certain condition.
On small test it seems the filter don't seems to degrade quality but I am not convinced.
Circular are impressive filter but they make the sea unnatural and I stop used them.
I will stop using this filter but keep it in my bag for special condition like wind on beach.

Richard_D · Joined: 21 Oct 2007 Posts: 2378 Location: Faversham Kent UK

Only routinely on my 20mm 2.8 ais (cost of replacement) otherwise only in foul conditions. Trying to remember to fit hoods more often though!

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I use filter as lens cap in storage, I shoot always without that.

Screamin Scott · Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:51 pm Post subject:

I use screw in hoods or lens caps to protect the front elements, unless I'm at the beach or in other conditions where blowing sand or sea spray would get on the lens. Other than that, I only use filters for effects (Ie; polarizers, red for contrast on B&W film etc)

Farside · Expire: 2013-12-27

I often fit a filter when I remember, but I've yet to find a so-called haze filter that actually works.

For general protection of the front element I'll often put a Skylight 1A on, but sometimes I don't bother.

Jesito · Expire: 2015-01-07

Just depends on the price I got for a lens.
The cheaper ones have no filter at all, only the most expensive ones.
As someone said,
"Good filters are expensive. There are cheaper ones but then they are called lens caps".
Best regards.
Jes.

Laurence · Expire: 2016-06-19

Sounds like I do the same as many of you: Use a skylight only if in a dusty or misty environment. I have them on a few lenses, but usually take them off before shooting.

j.lukow · Expire: 2021-11-25

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

I've listened to quite the number of responses to this question and have really never heard so much disagreement (except maybe concerning the quality of the zenit E line). Generally I feel that the "it has an adverse effect on the quality of my pictures" argument against using filters is somewhat over-dramatized. Not to say that cheap filters wouldn't have some-sort of an adverse effect but not the point where any reasonable enlargement would show much drop off. The argument that holds the most merit, at least as far as I'm concerned, is if the filter is not MC than flare is a major issue. But then again what are lens hoods for? I think Orio mentioned vignetting as a result of using both which is a real problem (if you�re not looking for that). In most cases though your lens would have to be close to wide open to really catch those darker edges and one may not have the right type of lens hood. They make wide-angle hoods for a reason.

Frankly most damage to lenses occurs because of improper cleaning. So by carefully cleaning all my front elements and permanently fixing (not really - but I don't take them off) them to the filter mount I have preserved that pristine front element. If it is constantly getting dusty/dirty/fingerprinty and whatnot and you are constantly cleaning it, you are greatly increasing the risk of scratching it.

Newer lenses have wonderful MC coatings that are designed to block a great deal of UV. So you may want to at least check your lenses transmittance and see if it is even needed. If your using some older single coated gadgets then more than likely a fair share of UV is getting through. Just something to keep in mind.

The skylight filters are not simply UV. They are also warming...which may be an undesired effect. Plus many brand-name UV filters don't block UV well at all. When I first started to research this matter I found this: http://photo.net/equipment/filters/ I have, following the guidance of this, attached a Tiffen haze-1 to every one of my lenses. And I�ve never had problems.

And might I add as a little side-note: UV captured on landscapes comes in as a bluish haze but it also shadows detail to a great degree. So as much as anyone can say "fix it in post-processing" (a statement that I detest!) you can't add detail that was never there, though some may disagree (yay sharpening (sarcasm)).

So that�s just my input...sorry if any of it sounded nasty (especially that last part). It really is lighthearted. Hope this helps!
~Marc

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

adding a possible but real risk perspective about using a filter: if my Planar 135 had a filter on in the moment it fell from my camera, the filter would have probably saved the lens thread from the damage (and this is an advantage), but, if the filter glass had broken (which is very likely due to the thin glass size and weak edge protection), the fragments of glass would have scratched the lens glass for sure, because glass is hard enough to scratch other glass - causing a much worse damage than a filter thread dent.

-

Screamin Scott · Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:16 am Post subject:

I've used lenses that have had cleaning marks & scratches & other than affecting the contrast slightly, there's no difference in IQ...If you get either on the rear elements, it's a different story...This is an argument that will never really change anyone's mind...No matter what, the people who use filters will keep using them & the people who don't, won't..So it's really senseless to debate because nobody's mind is going to be changed. I know mine isn't. Just do what you feel is best for you...

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

Orio - I completely agree with you in that particular situation. There are tons of those stories that go both ways. I've heard people getting packages and when opened the filter was just smashed but the lens was fine...what if it hadn't been there? Again just another alternative.

Scott - In most cases you�re totally correct, though I disagree that it's senseless to debate. Debate doesn't have to have an answer, in fact the best ones probably don't. For seasoned photographers the decision has already been made, decided, and implemented and will be stubbornly fought for. The debate is for those new to photography, people that may be seeking answers and could be persuaded one way or another. It's photographic politics. As long as you respect the other side there are no rules! haha

~Marc

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

I'm inconsistent Razz

The first lens I got (beyond the kit lens) was the Nikkor AF-S VR 24-120 which takes a 72mm filter. I did get some issues with blue shading and flare, living as I do by the sea and close to mountains I thought a uv filter would be good. The lens seemed like a major purchase at the time (�230) and I also wanted a protection for it. After some research on brands I got a B+W 010 MRC for it. It sits on the lens all the time except if I am doing with and without tests, or if the filter gets dirty and I don't have a microfibre cloth with me.

I have used that filter out at sea on a dolphin watching expedition and was pleased with both the visual results and with the water resistance and water repelling coating.

After a bit I bought a B+W circular polarizing filter which in retrospect was expensive, rarely used and probably not that good an idea.

My Micro-Nikkor has a very deeply recessed front element (its like a funnel) and is also mainly used indoors so has no filter. It would take a 52mm if it used one as would the kit lens. After buying the 24-120 I pretty much stopped using the kit lens for a bit, until I did comparative testing and also starrted wanting the 18-24mm coverage. So now I use it for landscapes. Still no filter on it yet.

The CV40 I also felt as expensive (�289) so bought a B+W filter for it immediately (before the CV40 arrived, in fact). By then I wasn't sure if UV filtering was either useful or beneficial, so I got the MRC 007 filter.

It turns out that the CV40, while it does have a 52mm filter thread, also has this weird conical screw-in hood, and if you mount the filter then the hood the hood is in the wrong place and might cause vignetting. The hood does offer some protection too. The center of the hood is threaded so I could in fact fit a 39mm filter there, but haven't. So I don't use a protective filter on my most expensive lens, go figure ...

Then I got the Zoom-Nikkor 80-200/4.5 AiS which takes a 52mm filter and I put the B+W 52mm filter on it, mainly to 'use it' than from any particular rationale. The filter was �29.99 and the lens was �30.50 Laughing

but I already had it so...

sorry to have written a novel there.

Laurence · Expire: 2016-06-19

Orio wrote: Well, it is also possible to exchange opinions about a subject, without necessarily wanting to convince the others about your opinion, don't you think?

As long as you do it MY way, no problem. Laughing

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

A quality filter will rarely have a negative effect on IQ. One of the few acceptions is in macro work. For me coming from mostly doing B+W work I always use filters. Many of my lenses have never been cleaned. When I get them new the filter goes on and stays. Even with most of the wides I have. B+W and other manufacturers have thin ring filters for wides down to 24mm on full frame. The primary filter I use is a Contax "P" (protection) filter. It is clear (no color) with T* coating. There is also a Contax "P filter" that is uncoated, in practice, these should be avoided (they are cheaper of course). The chances you take with your lens with no filter is not worth any minimal to zero improvement in IQ.

Juanma · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 257 Location: Cambrils, Spain

Very interesting opinions! Very Happy

I see that it's the same that in the AF lens world. There is some people for and some people against.

I think I will be using filters for some lens and leave some other without filter. I use Hoya Pro 1 UV filters (they are not b+w, but close to), and feel happy about them.

Thank you for your help.

Richard_D · Joined: 21 Oct 2007 Posts: 2378 Location: Faversham Kent UK

Probably the best test I've seen for the effects of filters on image quality:

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387/1

It's not a test that can't be criticized but it's more comprehensive than some.

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

wow that loss in contast for the tiffen is quite striking! This may actually make me rethink my haze-1 filters...

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Some of my lenses would be hard to replace, either because they are rarely found or it would be expensive to buy another copy.

These lenses I try to protect with a filter. Even if there might be some deterioration (which I think is not really striking!).

But for some of these lenses I do not have a fitting filter, because really good ones are expensive. And if a filter is more expensive than the lens I use... Well. Wink

On cheap lenses and those I could replace quite easily, I don't bother.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Richard - scientific or not it seems to have some merit.

Personally I keep my lens caps on all the time except when shooting and most of my lenses have hoods. I think this gives adequate protection nearly all of the time. Chris' point about being on the ocean / salt spray etc is a good one. I think in those circumstances I would put a neutral filter back on.

patrickh

j.lukow · Expire: 2021-11-25

I agree with Orio that we can share our opinions without wanting to change others . . .
Those of us with photographic experience will have indeed formed our own opinions, but hopefully this "debate"/discussion will allow the less experienced to decide what to try.
The tests Richard_D shared shows that if you use good filters you should be okay. What I take away from this discussion is the open mind to judge whether that filter helps or hinders and to adjust my plan appropriately.