# Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!



## Richard8971 (Jul 19, 2012)

I have always used UV filters on all of my lenses. For me, it is cheap insurance against accidental damage to the lens glass. However, this past weekend shooting with a friend is making me reconsider this...

I met a gentleman who was told to me had been shooting for decades. He had some pretty impressive equipment (Canon) with him to boot! He looked at my gear and asked if I always shot with UV filters and I said yes. He then said, "Why? Why would you spend $$$ on a top quality lens and then shoot through a UV filter that can distort the image?" Needless to say, I had nothing to say. He then said that keeping the damage off of your outer lens glass was the hood's job and to not worry about it. 

I looked at my friend and he said he agreeded with him and that he never used filters. He told me that you truly can get a better quality image without using UV filters...

Guys? Opinions?

D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 19, 2012)

Well, it is another piece of glass between the sensor and the photographed scene. However, if you get a good one it will not distort the image. B+W UV filters I guarantee you will not affect your image whatsoever. A thin piece of glass is transparent, so why would it noticeably affect your image if it were truly clear and even, like B+W filters are. So my answer is "No" if you have a high quality filter.

That aside, why would UV light hurt your lens? The glass is already protected, at least in L series lenses. The coating actually will prevent UV light from entering your lens. The lens hood does block some light out, so yeah, the hood helps. I think it isn't an issue. The only reason I use filters is to protect my lens from other things that can break it. 

In the summer I shoot with high quality UV filters on and I don't notice a negative impact at all. There's more glass in an IS stabilized lens afterall with no degradation of IQ.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jul 19, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> The only reason I use filters is to protect my lens from other things that can break it.
> 
> In the summer I shoot with high quality UV filters on and I don't notice a negative impact at all. There's more glass in an IS stabilized lens afterall with no degradation of IQ.



I get great results from all of my lenses that I have UV filters on. Like I said, it isn't because I want protection from UV so to speak, but mainly to protect the glass. 

I was just curious what you guys thought.

D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 19, 2012)

My opinion is go ahead and leave them on. If you wanted you could take it off before you shot, then put it back on. I've never had a problem with it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 19, 2012)

B&w filters don't degrade IQ. It protects the front element from dirt, dust, moisture, or anything that gets past the hood. A stray rock once destroyed a UV filter for me but saved the front element. No hood would have helped as it was a direct hit. 

It's obsurd to spend $$$$ and not protect it with a good filter. As soon as the lens is out of the box, a filter will screw on for the life of the lens. When re-sale time comes around, perfect front element. Done.


----------



## @!ex (Jul 19, 2012)

I shot with B+W filters at first as a protective measure, but would end up with aberrations, flares, and mirroring which ruins pictures. I have never had a damaged lens front, and to me the expensive coatings on the lenses are one of the most important features that you compromise with a filter. Plus they trap dust in between the lens and the filter, and are annoying, that on top of the problems I mentioned earlier have made them sacrilegious for me (especially on L glass).

just my 2 cents.


----------



## @!ex (Jul 19, 2012)

Also, I see so many photographers that are so worried about protecting all their gear, and so protective of everything that I wonder how much they actually care about what is important, the images themselves....


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 19, 2012)

Everything that you put in the path between the subject and the sensor will "degrade" the image, but good filters affect the images less so that ther effects aren't visible to our eyes' sensitivity. The same can also be true of lenses that have a lot of elements (i.e. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but no one complains that of the poor IQ even though it has so many air/glass interfaces). There are videos on YouTube where people stack dozens of filters and obviously the images degrade. You might need more B+Ws to get the same degradation than some other brands, but if you have enough of them, it won't matter -- the image will also degrade. Filters can affect flare, so if flare is an issue, I just take it off and see if it improves, take the pics and put it back on. 

A few lenses need filters to complete the weather sealing (i.e. 50L), but I find the filters a lot easier to clean. In dirty environments I'm much more willing to wipe off dirt, fluids, etc with whatever is on hand off of filters where I don't have to worry about scratching lens elements. The front elements have a lot of coatings and I'd rather not worry that my quick and dirty methods of cleaning the lenses in the field would degrade/scratch the coating layers. Small scratches of the coating layers won't affect IQ either, but it would affect resale value. I get a lot of my equipment used, and I'd rather buy a lens that looks perfect than one that shows wear and tear. I'd rather buy stuff that has been babied rather not used extensively in harsh environments... wouldn't you?


----------



## sandymandy (Jul 19, 2012)

i will never ever put a filter on one of my lenses. except ND for long term exposure. but uv filter or such? BAH!


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 19, 2012)

I've no idea if a UV lens significantly distorts or degrades the image, but for what its worth, I rarely use one. The only time I put one is when I'm shooting in dusty or dirty conditions (eg rally car races). They are easier to clean and give me a little peace of mind when there are rocks flying around.

The only time I've ever dropped a lens (a 17-40), it had a UV filter on. It fell on its side. But the UV filter smashed into tiny pieces. The lens itself was fine. Cleaning all of the tiny shards of glass from the front element and filter thread was a time consuming process, as I didn't want to scratch it. I thought I was quite lucky as the broken glass could have easily damaged the lens.


----------



## michi (Jul 19, 2012)

This question has probably been around since the day someone produced the first UV filter. I used to always have filters on my lenses, now I do not. Just recently I bought a 50 1.4 and a B+W filter which everyone recommended. There was quite a noticeable degradation in image quality with it on, so I'm back to no filters again. Yes, they do protect quite well and it surely helps resale value if you have a perfect front element, but if they degrade the image quality even just slightly, I don't see the point. Do your own testing. If you don't see any difference, keep them on. If you do, well, that's for you to decide, image quality versus protecting the lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 19, 2012)

@!ex said:


> Also, I see so many photographers that are so worried about protecting all their gear, and so protective of everything that I wonder how much they actually care about what is important, the images themselves....



Hi @!ex,
I'm one of those photographers like to keep my equipment nice and clearn - just like car.

I agree with most posters on B&W filter. I like B&W Clear filter 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/475496-REG/B_W_66_1005754_82mm_007_Protection_Clear.html

With or without filter on the lens, I got same IQ or at least same result under my ameture POV


----------



## The Bad Duck (Jul 19, 2012)

Easy question - in controlled environments I keep filters off. Otherwise they are on.

In the field shooting ariculture I keep filters on my lenses. On parties/events aswell (you never know when beer gets on your camera). And on hiking trips (a filter is needed to complete the weathersealing of my 70-200 for instance). And in crowded areas where lenses might bump into stuff or people. Or in the rain. 
I´m also afraid to scratch the front lens with the lens cap when attatching it inside the lens hood.

No filter in the studio or when shooing backlit with lightsource visible in the picture (unless its very dusty/rainy/snowy).

I would love to skip filters since they cost money, and I now have 8 lenses. The cost of my filters could pay for another flash or a cheaper lens. But in the end of the day, I want to protect my gear and be able to shoot first and think later. Putting the camera and lens in more interesting places is more important to me than getting that last 1% of IQ. Filters give me a little advantage because I don not have to worry so much.


----------



## JAustin (Jul 19, 2012)

Like probably most new shooters, I religiously attached a UV filter to every lens I bought in the beginning. (I also wasted many hours overcleaning my lenses' front *and rear* elements.)

Eventually, I began to relax & settle down, and after a little research, decided that -- for me-- neither _never_ nor _always_ are the best times to use UV filters.

I own one, high-quality UV filter for every front thread _size_ in my lens inventory, not every lens. For example, I have three L zooms with 77mm front elements, but I own only one 77mm filter.

If I'm shooting portraits in the studio, what's the point of a UV filter?

If I'm going to be shooting on the beach in salt air and all that sand about, the filter goes on before I go outside.

But by all means, it's your money and your equipment. Do what works for you, makes sense for you, and gives you peace of mind.


----------



## slinky (Jul 19, 2012)

I use UV filters, mostly for protection but sometimes forget to take them off when taking night shots with lights shining into the lens. Big problem with the UV filters is ghosting. Make sure that you watch out for that.


----------



## DJL329 (Jul 19, 2012)

If I remember correctly, some Canon lenses require a filter for full weather resistance.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jul 19, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> I have always used UV filters on all of my lenses. For me, it is cheap insurance against accidental damage to the lens glass. However, this past weekend shooting with a friend is making me reconsider this...
> 
> I met a gentleman who was told to me had been shooting for decades. He had some pretty impressive equipment (Canon) with him to boot! He looked at my gear and asked if I always shot with UV filters and I said yes. He then said, "Why? Why would you spend $$$ on a top quality lens and then shoot through a UV filter that can distort the image?" Needless to say, I had nothing to say. He then said that keeping the damage off of your outer lens glass was the hood's job and to not worry about it.
> 
> ...




I use high quality clear filters on my EF lenses (B&W). These are for protection only and I have never found any indication that they impact the image in any way.

No need for UV filters with digital that's why I prefer plain coated clear glass.


----------



## bkorcel (Jul 19, 2012)

I use exclusively L glass and don't use filters unless I'm in an environment that requires it. The filters do degrade the IQ by some degree, some more than others. Why degrade your IQ that you paid so much money for in the first place?


----------



## mememe (Jul 19, 2012)

I only use them if i know dirt is flying towards me. (in conclusion: NEVER)


----------



## ryanjennings (Jul 19, 2012)

I have done both. I have had some trouble with flare even when using a high quality uv filter. I find it kind of a hassle when I am using a circular polarizer though. Have to take off the uv then put on the circular polarizer. Outside in the day I usually have the circular polarizer on all the time anyway.


----------



## munzzzzzzz (Jul 19, 2012)

If you believe that filters protect your lens from impacts, you need to look on Youtube at the videos of people intentionally abusing lenses. What you'll find is that it takes a LOT of impact to even scratch the outer element of a lens (there is at least one where a guy is hitting it with a hammer with no apparent damage). Try doing that to the extremely thin piece of glass in your filter and you can expect it to shatter. 

If you're talking about protecting it from dust and dirt, I can see that to a degree, but as others have pointed you should be able to plan and prepare for those scenarios and use them as necessary.

Under ideal shooting conditions, even a cheap filter may not affect IQ much. It's when you get into less than ideal situations, i.e where there is a potential for lens flare, where filters can really start to affect IQ. And buying a B+W filter doesn't automatically mean it won't affect IQ. If you want to use one want to minimize the effect on IQ, you should really use a multi-coated filter (look for "MRC" on B+W filters) but you'll also find that they get expensive quickly.

At the end of the day, you should really always be using a lens hood, both to protect from lens flare and to protect your lens, and if you're doing that in most scenarios a filter isn't going to help much more. However, if you're NOT using your lens hood and ARE using a filter (especially a cheap one), there's a decent chance that at times IQ will be negatively impacted.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 19, 2012)

munzzzzzzz said:


> If you believe that filters protect your lens from impacts, you need to look on Youtube at the videos of people intentionally abusing lenses. What you'll find is that it takes a LOT of impact to even scratch the outer element of a lens (there is at least one where a guy is hitting it with a hammer with no apparent damage). Try doing that to the extremely thin piece of glass in your filter and you can expect it to shatter.
> 
> If you're talking about protecting it from dust and dirt, I can see that to a degree, but as others have pointed you should be able to plan and prepare for those scenarios and use them as necessary.
> 
> ...



I use all B+W MRC UV filters, ND filters, and CP filters. I've shot out in the sun routinely and have noticed no lens flare or any IQ problems.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 19, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> munzzzzzzz said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe that filters protect your lens from impacts, you need to look on Youtube at the videos of people intentionally abusing lenses. What you'll find is that it takes a LOT of impact to even scratch the outer element of a lens (there is at least one where a guy is hitting it with a hammer with no apparent damage). Try doing that to the extremely thin piece of glass in your filter and you can expect it to shatter.
> ...



+1 Shot into the sun. Haven't seen any extra flare that wouldn't already be there from the lens anyway.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jul 19, 2012)

this discussion is so old i can´t read about it anymore. 
all the same arguments over and over.

i mean honest.... why asking this question.. just google it!!
there are a billion threads about it and everything was said before.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 19, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> this discussion is so old i can´t read about it anymore.
> all the same arguments over and over.
> 
> i mean honest.... why asking this question.. just google it!!
> there are a billion threads about it and everything was said before.



If you don't like the topic, you don't have to click on the thread and read the posts?? That's the beauty of this website. Someone can start any thread they want and get helpful, meaningful answers.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 19, 2012)

munzzzzzzz said:


> At the end of the day, you should really always be using a lens hood, both to protect from lens flare and to protect your lens, and if you're doing that in most scenarios a filter isn't going to help much more. However, if you're NOT using your lens hood and ARE using a filter (especially a cheap one), there's a decent chance that at times IQ will be negatively impacted.



Except that UWA lens hoods are so shallow and wide that they don't afford much protection at all.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 19, 2012)

Kinda what most people say... I have them on to protects lens in less than ideal situations such as in crowds or to complete weather sealing... As long as they are good quality filters you probably won't notice any degradation of IQ.  

Don't stress about it, either way, and just enjoy your equipment for what it was designed for... Shooting!


----------



## @!ex (Jul 19, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> Kinda what most people say... I have them on to protects lens in less than ideal situations such as in crowds or to complete weather sealing... As long as they are good quality filters you probably won't notice any degradation of IQ.
> 
> Don't stress about it, either way, and just enjoy your equipment for what it was designed for... Shooting!



+1


----------



## MaddScientiskt (Jul 19, 2012)

To do or not to do....it just comes down to personal preference and anal retentiveness at the end of the day ;D Like many have stated, I just use my filters when I know its going to be a non-ideal situation. For probably 90% of my shooting, I don't use a filter. Truthfully I probably wouldn't notice the filter on there, but I KNOW its on there and I don't want to risk the difference in image quality (because there will be one, just may not see it, hence the anal retentiveness  ). Most who are enthusiast baby their glass anyway. Some pro's do too. I'm guilty of it during the first month or so. Know your habits and how you handle your equipment. If you are rough on your $1000 lenses use it, if not don't. Definitely a personal call there. It doesn't make you any more or less a photographer for using it though.

Have fun and shoot!....Spray and pray not recommended


----------



## robbymack (Jul 19, 2012)

this is probably thread count 2,867,985,345 on the internet regarding this very topic. It's all been said before, you're either a filter guy, a sometimes filter guy, or a no way in hell filter guy. To each his own. Personally I've never seen the alledged image degredation some folks speak of when using a filter, I've also not thought taking a hammer to the front of my lens is a way to prove filters are worthless either. All that being said I'm a always filter guy, I figure maybe it provides a little extra protection, if it does, fine, if it doesn't, well it helps me sleep better at night.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 19, 2012)

B+W F-pro 010 MRC on all L lenses plus the 50 f1.4 which I love to death. No filter on other non-L lenses including the shorty forty whose front element is small enough for an easy cleaning with a LensPen. In general, if a lens is $400 or less, I would not bother "protecting" it with a filter.


----------



## V8Beast (Jul 19, 2012)

I find that the lens cap does an extraordinary job of protecting the lens. For the stuff I shoot, circular polarizing filters are almost a must. That said, I avoid using filters unless absolutely necessary. IMHO, the best filter is no filter, even if you're using a high-dollar filter that boasts negligible degradation in image quality. 

Like everything else in photography, it's a tradeoff. If my subject requires a long shutter speed in the middle of the day, then I have to bust out a 1.8 neutral density filter to darken the ambient light by six stops. Yeah it might degrade the optics a tad, but it's still a heck of a lot better than shooting a subject at 1/30 of a second when I really wanted to use a 2 second exposure.


----------



## elflord (Jul 19, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> I looked at my friend and he said he agreeded with him and that he never used filters. He told me that you truly can get a better quality image without using UV filters...
> 
> Guys? Opinions?



You'll get plenty of opinions, but this question will not be resolved in this (or any other) thread.

The only reason I bother with filters is that if I ever have to resell the lenses, I'd rather not explain to the buyers that the lens has coating nicks or hairline scratches even if they have absolutely no effect on image quality. 

Lensrentals had an article where they discussed this and showed some tests which indicate how much (or how little) difference it makes: 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 20, 2012)

Certain times of the year I find myself in locations with a lot of dust. I'd much rather wipe my B+W with a Leica cloth than my lens and it's precious coating. I have filters on all lenses except my pancake.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jul 20, 2012)

Wow, thank you everyone who took the time to give me your thoughts. I don't have high end filters so I think for most shoots I will leave them off. Granted I won't throw them away either, I'll keep them around just in case.

Thanks again everyone!

D


----------



## helpful (Jul 20, 2012)

A UV filter certainly has a small effect on image quality. 11 years ago when I was still a photojournalist, I carried my camera around my neck with no lens cap and no filter for thousands of hours. [Lens caps have kept me from getting more pictures that you could imagine, so I have a very personal hatred for them.] Only a few times did I bash the lens into something accidentally. And never did I damage the lens. The only time a lens was ever damaged was when it was supposedly safely in its case with the lens cap on, and the lens cap was bumped off somehow and it scratched against other things in my briefcase.

The solution I use now is to never use lens caps or filters. I do use hoods, most of them permanently taped into place on my lenses, and in my case I always keep the lens hood end of the lens up against the sidewall of its compartment.

There is information about coatings that says "99.99%" transmission, etc. That is only talking about a specific component of the effect on transmission of the light through its path to the sensor, caused by that layer of lens coating. The entire result of even the most ideal filter is usually at most 97% transmission. That's negligible, certainly much less than even 1/3rd of a stop. But definitely it is not the same as having no effect at all.

I agree with the comments about the irrelevance of lens dust mentioned above. People tend to clean their lenses far too often and actually end up damaging them.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 20, 2012)

B+W all the way. After spending 2 or 3 grand (or more) on a lens, I just dread thinking about something getting on that beautiful L glass. I really don't want to ever have to touch that pristine surface.


----------



## Sony (Jul 20, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> B+W all the way. After spending 2 or 3 grand (or more) on a lens, I just dread thinking about something getting on that beautiful L glass. I really don't want to ever have to touch that pristine surface.


Strongly agree! I rather clean up the dirts on filter than touch lens's surface.


----------



## rahkshi007 (Jul 20, 2012)

I am the one who use UV filter.. but i only use B+W and Hoya HD.. there are a few reason i use UV filter:
1) Those top quality filter has coating which is 10 times easier to clean than the glass of lens, even L lens.
2) I am using Crumpler 7 million on my shooting and traveling, it need to put 4 lens and 1 body and 1 flash: 24-70 2.8L, 17-40 f4L, 85mm f1.2II, 50mmf1.4 5dm2, 600ex-rt .. there is no more space for me to put those hoods, so most of the time i do not use hood..
3) with UV filter, i can switch my lens faster as i don use lens cap anymore, as those high quality filter does not scratch easily: all lens just squeeze into my bag without cap if i having photoshoot with model.. 

the disadvantage of UV filter : u lost just a little of sharpness and contrast even though it is B+W or Hoya HD.. only noticeable if u compare both image at 100% scale.


----------



## Pitbullo (Jul 20, 2012)

I use lens hood for protection, UV filter has no place in my bag. Polarizer and ND, yes, UV, no.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 20, 2012)

rahkshi007 said:


> I am the one who use UV filter.. but i only use B+W and Hoya HD.. there are a few reason i use UV filter:
> 1) Those top quality filter has coating which is 10 times easier to clean than the glass of lens, even L lens.
> 2) I am using Crumpler 7 million on my shooting and traveling, it need to put 4 lens and 1 body and 1 flash: 24-70 2.8L, 17-40 f4L, 85mm f1.2II, 50mmf1.4 5dm2, 600ex-rt .. there is no more space for me to put those hoods, so most of the time i do not use hood..
> 3) with UV filter, i can switch my lens faster as i don use lens cap anymore, as those high quality filter does not scratch easily: all lens just squeeze into my bag without cap if i having photoshoot with model..
> ...



Hmmm, I don't think I've ever seen a pic where there was a loss of sharpness and contrast using a B+W UV filter.


----------

