# When do you shoot naked? (With no UV filter)



## YuengLinger (May 30, 2017)

There has been a recent rehashing of the UV filter debate here on Canon Rumors, and I'm not trying to stir it up again.

For those who do choose to use UV filters, when do you NOT use them? In what scenarios?

I'm interested because my own view of them has been evolving. When I bought my first dSLR in 2005, a friendly salesman sung the praises and I saw no downsides. I stubbornly believed for at least five years there was never a reason to remove a UV filter, that the miniscule IQ impact was worth having "protection." My wife knocked over a tripod, body, and 24-70mm; the UV filter shattered, but the front element was unharmed. So I swore by them even more!

Then, after about five years, I began shooting with faster lenses and realized the UV filter was playing havoc with sun flare and backlit scenarios.

Now I'm seeing issues with side-lit shots too (though I suspect MAYBE the 5DIV is more susceptible than earlier bodies). So I'm at the point where, with lenses faster than 2.8 or even 4.0, I'm not sure I should ever have a UV filter on except when the lighting is pretty much flat or controlled with strobe. But it's hard not to compulsively put one on at the beach or anywhere dust or light rain is expected.

That's it! It would be great to hear from other photographers who pick and choose when to use UV filters, and why. Thanks!


----------



## Valvebounce (May 30, 2017)

Hi YuengLinger. 
I have just removed uv filters from my lenses to give shooting naked a try. I want to see if I can spot a difference, no difference to my eyes and the filters go back. If I can see a difference they will stay off with the exception of some hazardous circumstances, in the presence of my nieces and nephews*, and when debris or water might cause a risk, these two sometimes occur simultaneously! ;D
* Youngest nephew (3) is a bit grabby and all except the eldest niece (10) think it is funny to put their nose on the end of the lens!! :  (and sometimes to some small extent it is!) 
Edit, I meant to say the latest filters post from lens rentals https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/05/yet-another-post-about-my-issues-with-uv-filters/ prompted my test of shooting naked. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## monkey44 (May 30, 2017)

Personally, I almost never use a filter except to get a specific effect, and even then, with film or slides. Shooting action wildlife and sports, I've never seen the benefit except to protect the lens. And in more than twenty years, I've never damaged a lens - at least not in any way a filter would have helped it.

Years ago, I shot with a 100-400 ... and decided it lost sharpness with a filter. So, removed it and have not installed one on a lens since.


----------



## ERHP (May 30, 2017)

My 600 goes naked all the time  I don't have much choice with the 11-24 either. 

The only places I'm really happy to use a clear filter when there will be water droplets, i.e. from a mist/rainstorm when trying to catch a rainbow or potential salt spray where I know I'm going to have to wipe the lens constantly, usually the 24-70 as I've already had the coating destroyed on one front element. A majority of the time the lenses are uncovered.


----------



## leadin2 (May 30, 2017)

When would I shoot without UV filter:
1) After exploring with test shots, I will remove the UV filter for actual shoot, either indoor or outdoor.
2) When using CPL or ND filter.
3) If the filter thread is 52mm or less, I don't bother to buy UV filter.
4) When I forget to put back the UV filter.


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 30, 2017)

Always, except when using a ND or CPL. The one time I dropped a lens, the UV filter did not prevent damage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2017)

I take the UV filter off my 70-200/2.8L IS II if I'm shooting backlit. Otherwise, I leave them on unless I'm swapping on a CPL or ND filter.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 30, 2017)

For those that are front filterable, the filters generally stay on or are substituted for ND, CPLs, etc. The only time the lens is naked is when it's not front filterable or when using a macro with the twin macro lights due to interference with the adaptor ring.

My EF-M lenses don't get filters due to lower replacement prices.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 30, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi YuengLinger.
> I have just removed uv filters from my lenses to give shooting naked a try. I want to see if I can spot a difference, no difference to my eyes and the filters go back. If I can see a difference they will stay off with the exception of some hazardous circumstances, in the presence of my nieces and nephews*, and when debris or water might cause a risk, these two sometimes occur simultaneously! ;D
> * Youngest nephew (3) is a bit grabby and all except the eldest niece (10) think it is funny to put their nose on the end of the lens!! :  (and sometimes to some small extent it is!)
> Edit, I meant to say the latest filters post from lens rentals https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/05/yet-another-post-about-my-issues-with-uv-filters/ prompted my test of shooting naked.
> ...



Note that this article refers to cheap, poor quality UV filters not UV filters in general. If a high quality UV filter is used then the impact on image quality should be negligible.
Also, most weather sealed lenses are only really weather sealed if a filter is used.

I find a filter just adds a bit more protection, which is important if I am venturing into an unknown environment that might be dusty or that presents a risk to the lens in some other way.
The only lens that


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> The only time the lens is naked is when it's not front filterable or when using a macro with the twin macro lights due to interference with the adaptor ring.



I definitely want a front filter for macro, especially with the MP-E 65 where I'm often shoving the front of the lens up against a plant. When I mount the twin light to the lens (which I do sometimes, but I also often use a pair or Wimberley F-2 brackets for the twin heads), I have a filter on the lens, then a Macrolite Adapter 58C mounted on the filter, and the MT-24 ring clips onto the Macrolite adapter.


----------



## takesome1 (May 30, 2017)

I bought in to the filter idea. Protect the lens, low loss of IQ. I always knew that if I took the filter off I could gain just a little bit. The filter would be on all the time to protect what might happen, and diminishes the results of what does happen. I decided to stop worrying and I no longer shoot with the filter on. I do have exceptions such as salt or sandy conditions. But otherwise I now go naked and if my precious lenses get scratched up so be it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 30, 2017)

Unless I have a specific reason, I never use a filter. I found out long ago that the fine details can be affected by any filter, even the best ones drop IQ by a tiny amount. I have a ton of filters filling a entire cabinet, but they sit unused. I just bought a marumi HD 100,000 filter for the solar eclipse, after that, it will just sit.


----------



## GammyKnee (May 30, 2017)

I tend to go filter-free with lenses that have fairly deep and robust hoods, unless using the filter makes more sense (weather conditions etc).

With lenses that have hoods that offer less protection I tend towards using a filter unless I have a good reason not to. For example, if flare is likely or if having the absolute sharpest possible result is important then I'll ditch the filter.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 30, 2017)

I always buy B+W XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 Filter for my lenses(each lens has it own clear filter). 

I would install ND on top if needed. Never have issue with IQ.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html?sts=pi


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 30, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> I always buy B+W XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 Filter for my lenses(each lens has it own clear filter).
> 
> I would install ND on top if needed. Never have issue with IQ.
> 
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html?sts=pi



I used to do that, B&H made lots of money off me. Then, one day I tried with one of them off, and the image looked cleaner with more contrast, so I took them all off, including my expensive Helicon filter. I kept a filter on my 17-55 EF-s due to those who experienced excessive dust, and after years of use, the lens stayed clean.

Much of my use is for indoor product photography where I use live view on a large monitor, usually at 1:1 or even greater, and can spot just a tiny difference. There is also no need for a filter in that application.


----------



## Valvebounce (May 30, 2017)

Hi Ian. 
Yes I appreciate the article is talking about cheap filters, I also haven't spent a great fortune on filters, I have Hoya Pro1Digital DMC (Digital Multi Coated) filters and meeting part 2 of the purchasing equation by buying on eBay I thought it would be good to just check the difference! 

Cheers, Graham. 



Ian_of_glos said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi YuengLinger.
> ...


----------



## KeithBreazeal (May 30, 2017)

I only use a protective or UV filters under risky shooting conditions such as blowing grit or rain. I've never noticed any IQ problems with a filter, but occasionally have seem signs of secondary reflections from off axis sun glint.

Filter on



Top Fuel NHRA 2013 1966 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

Filter off



Dolly Tattoo © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Filter on
> 
> Filter off



Wow, the filter makes quite a difference in the result!


----------



## Click (May 30, 2017)

Now I understand "shooting naked". ;D


----------



## KeithBreazeal (May 30, 2017)

Click said:


> Now I understand "shooting naked". ;D



+1


----------



## msatter (May 30, 2017)

I would not advise to shoot naked without a good UV filter in the sun crème. You will get burned on the most inconvenient places.

I prefer my models naked and I myself clothed to spare myself from burning and also the model the view of my "godlike" body. "Godlike" it is. :-X


----------



## dpc (May 30, 2017)

Haven't used a UV filter in years.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 30, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I only use a protective or UV filters under risky shooting conditions such as blowing grit or rain. I've never noticed any IQ problems with a filter, but occasionally have seem signs of secondary reflections from off axis sun glint.



Could you please explain how a race track could possibly be more "risky" than being in the shower with your camera? ;D

Super!


----------



## lion rock (May 30, 2017)

I have to practice shooting naked. But wait! It didn't give me similar results to Keith's beautiful naked results :'(.
-r


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> For those that are front filterable, the filters generally stay on or are substituted for ND, CPLs, etc. The only time the lens is naked is when it's not front filterable or when using a macro with the twin macro lights due to interference with the adaptor ring.
> 
> My EF-M lenses don't get filters due to lower replacement prices.



Marumi filters for EF-M lenses are dirt cheap as they are so small and are a tiny fraction of the replacement lens price.


----------



## brad-man (May 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > For those that are front filterable, the filters generally stay on or are substituted for ND, CPLs, etc. The only time the lens is naked is when it's not front filterable or when using a macro with the twin macro lights due to interference with the adaptor ring.
> ...




I would like more EF-M lenses (quick primes) to put some small filters on


----------



## tpatana (May 31, 2017)

msatter said:


> I would not advise to shoot naked without a good UV filter in the sun crème. You will get burned on the most inconvenient places.
> 
> I prefer my models naked and I myself clothed to spare myself from burning and also the model the view of my "godlike" body. "Godlike" it is. :-X



Buddha is a god.


----------



## tpatana (May 31, 2017)

Funnily enough, I used to use filters on my old crappy lenses a'ka rebel kit and 50/1.8. Now I have lenses worth protecting, I almost never use filters. I paid money to have good quality lens, I rather not impact it even how little it might be.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (May 31, 2017)

lion rock said:


> I have to practice shooting naked. But wait! It didn't give me similar results to Keith's beautiful naked results :'(.
> -r



HA!


----------



## Random Orbits (May 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > The only time the lens is naked is when it's not front filterable or when using a macro with the twin macro lights due to interference with the adaptor ring.
> ...



Thanks for pointing out the 58C! I had always just put the MT-24 ring onto the MP-E, and didn't realize that why the 58C would be necessary because it didn't change the diameter.


----------



## Don Haines (May 31, 2017)

I shoot naked when I am on a canoe trip, it is dark out, and there is nobody around to see me....

A couple of nights ago with a 60D, 18-200 lens, no filter, and no clothing on.....


----------



## pwp (May 31, 2017)

I'm contrary to the majority here. I use high quality UV filters most of the time on 16-35 f/4is, 24-70 f/2.8II & 70-200 f/2.8isII. Disruptive flare from strong backlight may be an exception. Over time I've smashed a few filters which were still removable and the lens was undamaged. These contemporary zoom lenses deliver very high quality images so a barely measurable IQ drop means nothing to me against the added layer of protection offered by a premium UV. Cheap UV's are just awful. Hoods and filters are a simple and very effective first line of lens protection. In the field I'm just as likely to clean up a dirty/wet front element with my shirt, or worse.

I've never had a client say "oh...so it looks like there was a UV filter on the lens...." An interesting, even technically imperfect image will always be senior to a boring, yet technically perfect image. Content is King. If on that very rare occasion where a lens takes a hit, I'd always favour every option that would enable me to keep working. 

+1 UV.

-pw


----------



## Mikehit (May 31, 2017)

msatter said:


> I prefer my models naked and I myself clothed to spare myself from burning and also the model the view of my "godlike" body. "Godlike" it is. :-X



My wife bought me a T-shirt with the logo 'They say I have the body of a God - Too bad its Buddha'. Some people get it, some people don't.


----------



## Mikehit (May 31, 2017)

It's not so much 'when I shoot naked' as 'when I shoot with protection'

I always used to have filters on until I came across one that screwed up the AF badly, so I ditched it. Most of my shooting now is with telephotos and for those I always have a lens hood on which makes a filter unnecessary - but I will attach one in windy conditions with dust flying around. For wider angle shots where the hood is shallow (or not used at all) I will use a filter most of the time.


----------



## SteveM (May 31, 2017)

I only shoot naked in warm weather.

Joking apart, B&W protection filters, they stay on permanently. Never had a client complain - on or off seems to make no difference with flare, keep the sun out of shot with lens hood where I can.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> Thanks for pointing out the 58C! I had always just put the MT-24 ring onto the MP-E, and didn't realize that why the 58C would be necessary because it didn't change the diameter.



It's not 'necessary' for the MP-E 65. It's for other lenses without the mount ring, and some G-series PowerShots. I just co-opt it for another, rather specific use.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for pointing out the 58C! I had always just put the MT-24 ring onto the MP-E, and didn't realize that why the 58C would be necessary because it didn't change the diameter.
> ...



But you need the 58C in order to be able to keep the filter on the lens, right? Otherwise, the mount ring would try to fit the groove on the lens.


----------



## bholliman (May 31, 2017)

When I started out the salespeople convinced me I needed UV filters to protect my front elements from scratches and damage, so I used them almost all the time. I started with Hoya mid-range filters and eventually switched to B+W. At some point around 2 years ago I decided to stop using them and rely on lens hoods to protect the front element. After a couple of years with no protection, all my front elements are pristine, so I think it was a good decision.

I still have good quality UV filters for all my EF lenses, but rarely use them, only for weather sealing in wet or extremely dusty conditions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Correct - that's the 'specific use'.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 3, 2017)

Hi Folks. 
Further information from Roger and the Lens Rentals team. 
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/
Edit Roger tests a load of filters for transmission losses, some interesting results. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 3, 2017)

I never use one. I'm pretty sure I do not even own one unless those 52mm rear filters on the big whites are more than just a sheet of glass.


----------



## slclick (Jun 3, 2017)

I never shoot macro without a filter. Too many pokey things. Other than that sure why not.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 4, 2017)

I was pretty strict about keeping one on when taking pics of the kids (both under 5!) close up, but as I play more with backlighting, the filters just won't work...

For sure when out in the bush I keep on my protection, like on my macro or 100-400mm. Don't like the "pokey things" either!

And the beach, just to complete the Canon weather sealing, except when shooting into sunrise on calm mornings.


----------



## tpatana (Jun 4, 2017)

You can always buy new lens but you can't always re-capture the shot you missed.


----------



## slclick (Jun 4, 2017)

tpatana said:


> You can always buy new lens but you can't always re-capture the shot you missed.



What a strange thing to say.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 4, 2017)

Never use one unless I'm concerned the front element is going to get splattered with something unpleasant.


----------



## msatter (Jun 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> msatter said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer my models naked and I myself clothed to spare myself from burning and also the model the view of my "godlike" body. "Godlike" it is. :-X
> ...



I fully understand people not getting that........same shirt also. 

Thanks for the kind suggesting and good yo know that I have a real godlike body!


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2017)

Nikon has announced a new range of superstrong optically superior filters http://www.nikon-image.com/products/accessory/about/arcrest/

(I use Chrome to translate)


----------

