UV Filter versus No Filter

[EagleGirl]

I've always used a filter to protect the lens but I have heard from professional photographers that you are giving up some sharpness by putting a cheap glass in front of a very expensive lens. I attended Hanson Fong's workshop last weekend and he has the no filter opinion. He says to use your lens hood to protect the lens. I own a couple of L lenses and would hate to get a scratch.

Opinions?

[Stephen H]

I've read conflicting info through the years.

In terms of sharpness, stick a filter on, go photograph, and see if you can see a difference. If you can't, it doesn't matter what anyone else says.

I've read posts from people who claimed to have actually experienced problems, but that was with glare, and the issue was coated filter vs uncoated filter, not a sharpness issue.

I remember reading a Roger Hicks comment one time, that he had taken the oldest dirtiest filters he could find, photographed through them, and neither he nor anyone that looked at the shots could tell the difference.

[Bartman01]

UV filters are good if the front of your lens is in danger (shooting kids/dogs close up). They are also good if you need the UV filtration for the shoot. Another reason to use them would be in a harsh environment (sandy/wet) where you want to keep foreign object off your your front lens element. Otherwise they just add another piece of glass in the shooting path, and that is never a good thing. How much 'quality' is lost due to having one on is debatable though so this question can lead to some partisan discussion.

There is a good argument that if you constantly have to clean your front element (due to where/how you shoot) then you are better off with one one so you are cleaning an easily replaceable (relatively) inexpensive item instead of risking damage to the front lens element.

[john s]

Originally Posted by grammiejo

I've always used a filter to protect the lens but I have heard from professional photographers that you are giving up some sharpness by putting a cheap glass in front of a very expensive lens. I attended Hanson Fong's workshop last weekend and he has the no filter opinion. He says to use your lens hood to protect the lens. I own a couple of L lenses and would hate to get a scratch.

Opinions?

Nikon makes a filter that is clear glass. I don't think it makes any difference
which lens millimeter it is, such as a 52mm on a Nikon or a Canon should fit. Correct
me if I'm wrong

johnyatesphoto@mindspring.com
Canon all the way

[Gordon]

I tend to use UV filters when my lenses are in danger of getting messed up.

At the sea (spray, salt, sand)
Near children (sticky fingers)
Near animals (stick noses, tongues)
Shooting sports (spray/ mud)


The rest of the time I try to remember to take the filters off.

A little scratch on the glass is essentially invisible anyway. Try this some time, with a cheap filter on your lens. Take increasingly larger bits of post-it notes and stick it on the lens, near the middle (i.e., don't hide it away in the edges)

See how big a bit of paper you have to put over the lens before you can notice it in a normal shot of something at an average distance away.

Once you've worked out how big a mark/scratch/ piece of paper on a lens that it takes before you can see the difference, you might realise just how fragile the optics really are :)

[RGWeber]

The quality of the filter is what I have found to be important. I had picked up a Quantaray filter because it was convienent on short notice for my Nikkor 17-55mm. The pictures were soft. It took about an hour to figure out it was the filter. I changed out with a Hoya from another lens and I was back to tack sharp photos. If you are going to use a filter, stick with top of the line brands. I attended Hanson class on Sunday and his opinion was the filter was not necessary in his type of shooting. However, I am outside most of the time in the dust so I like the extra protection.

Rick

Rick

[EagleGirl]

Good information everybody. Thanks a bunch

[darktiger]

I do not really see a big difference in sharpness with or without my filter. I bough a B+W UV MRC filter and have been happy with it since. My lens does not fog up going from warm to cold environments and since I am around my friends 1 year old, I rather clean the filter then my lens. I say if you are going to use a filter, get one that everyone recommends.

[kenw]

normally the filter stays in place. If i suspect ghosting of bright lights, or other issues, it isn't rocket science to remove it for the shot. I would bet most accidents don't happen when actually shooting; they happen in the dead space between shots: climbing rocks, scampering up hills, crossing interstate highways........

During that time, screw it back on.

Or better yet, put the lenscap on.....

[Wes]

All my lenses have B+W multicoated UV filters on them. Pricey, but definitely worth the money.

[AdamN]

I have taken pictures with and without filters on all my lenses and viewed the pictrures at 100% and haven't noticed a difference. I will say that they are worth their weight in gold for protection though. Back when I was shooting with an old Pentax SLR, I was hiking and lost my balance on a rocky area and the filter was the first thing to hit the ground. Damaged filter - only a couple of bucks. Damaged lense - alot more than a filter. Just keep that in mind if your ever in a place where something 'could' possibly go wrong. HTH

[venchka]

Originally Posted by xmenporsche

All my lenses have B+W multicoated UV filters on them. Pricey, but definitely worth the money.

The key phrase in the original post was "cheap filter". The high end B+W MRC filters are just the opposite of cheap. High quality glass, high quality coatings, high quality mounts. Be careful. Like everyone else, B+W makes several grades of filters. If you run into a situation where you absolutley positively must have every last lp/mm then take the filter off & replace it as soon as possible.

[iCe]

Unless it's a graduated ND or a circular polarizer I don't use filters. I have a before / after comparison that I made with my 70-200 f2.8L and a Hoya UV filter (about $100 give or take) and the filter was noticably less sharp.

[KeithAlanK]

I shoot at night a great deal, and a UV filter gave me a much higher degree of difficulty in avoiding flare and ghosting.
I also take lots of train action photos, and their headlights gave me all kinds of similar troubles with a UV or clear filter, even though they were multi-coated for digital anti-reflection.

When I'm shooting on a bright sunny day a polarizer is my filter of choice.
When doing IR there are usually three filters on the end of my lens, sometimes four.

The last thing I want to do is have to remove (and store away) what is essentially a piece of unnecessary protection, seeing as how I already have added some for artistic reasons.

And I use a lens hood as much as possible.

When my lens is naked I know it's giving me the best possible quality, and I never forget that it's naked so I always handle my camera with the utmost of care--a habit that over time has instilled careful habits.

The order of protection:
1) Lens Cap--always on until you need to shoot
2) Lens Hood--Eliminates unwanted flare, great protection
3) Filters--The ones you're already using for artistic reasons

It seems like the camera stores always recommend getting a UV filter for protection to the new camera owners, but wisely refrain from trying to sell them to people who have some experience.
Maybe they know better which people actually scratch their lenses, I don't know.
Sounds more like an easy sell to folks who are nervous about their expensive new camera.
Just be careful.

[Cope]

More heated discussion on this than whether Canon is better than Nikon. For 30 years I have been taught that a uv or skylight filter is a good idea as a lens protector. With digital, I have switched to uv. Read what one pro says.

http://www.planetneil.com/faq/filters.html

BTW, if you choose to use a uv, remove it before attaching a special effect filter.