DSLRUsers.com

OK we all go and spend a lot of money on glass but what's the consensus about screw on - protection (UV) filters...

There are those who say no - damage will be covered by their insureance and filters can detract from the glass quality (and they have a valid point) .. (I have actually experiencedi an issue with this in the past )

But if we do decide to place a piece of glass over our very expensive piece of glass in an attempt to stop damage which do we choose - having just bought a new lense I looked at what is avaliale ...looked at the Pro ones (hoping they are worth the extra dollars) and then 2 brands the traditional(well at least to me) Hoya....and the Kenko ..so did I waste my money???

I am interested in your opinions and learnings
To filter - and with what OR Not to filler

Deb T

Prevention is better than cure. Always have a good quality (quality should equal to that of the lens) UV filter in front. what you shouldn't do is, put a crap filter in front of nice glass.

If image quality is paramount, and you are noticing problems in your prints, then you can either get a better coated filter or temporariliy remove when shooting.

Others of course, will have different ideas I am sure.

You have to look at the damage you are trying to prevent. If you drop a lens so that something smashes through the filter, chances are you will damage the front element anyway. So you can only count on protection against fingerprints and maybe scratches, if you're walking through the bush or something similar.

My experience is that fingerprints come off easily, and I have never scratched a front element. I'd rather spend my money on something else.

I haven't used filters on my lenses (other than polarising filters for a purpose) for at least 20 years. None of my lenses have ever been damaged in any way.

I used to have protective filters on all my lenses. Some of them are "UV", while some of them are "Protect" (Canon has these). Certainly when cleaning the filter in the field I've been happier when wiping away knowing that if the worst happened I could just take the filter off. But the worst hasn't happened.

But keep in mind that if the front element did get scratched, it's usually one of the cheapest parts of the lens to replace! Also, if you do have scratches on the front element, it will probably only affect your images if they catch bright lights and introduce flare. Have a look at this article to see an extreme example.

When using crop-format cameras and full-frame lenses I've got lazy a few times when using a polariser and put it on the end of the protection filter. When I do this on the wrong combination of equipment I get darkened corners where the stack of filters is intruding on the frame.

I would try to remember to take the filters off when shooting in conditions where internal reflections might be an issue, but of course sometimes I forgot.


Because I use hoods all the time, because of that vignetting problem, and because I'm now keen to eke the last bits of quality out of my lenses without having to consider spend many thousands of $$ on "better" lenses (which I wouldn't be using filters on anyway), I decided a while ago to leave the filters off my lenses as a default position.

There are good reasons for using these filters, especially on a lens like the EF 17-40mm/4, which only has complete rain protection with a filter in place. And I will be keeping the filters around for times like this. Also when doing things like shooting in sandstorms (the paint on the side of some of my lenses has worn down in places ).

Recommendation: be sure you have a clean microfibre cloth (preferably stored in a ziplock) with you at all times. Probably a LensPen also.

i use B+W UV filters on every lens i have ever owned. never had a flare, IQ or colour problem. i understand that the arguments about a filter probably not protecting that much...but i dont really care. i'm a bit anally retentive when it comes to my glass and i like the idea of that front element never being exposed to anything apart from a microfibre cloth every month or so as part of routine manitenance. i've sold a few lens' on this site and i'm sure the recipients were pretty happy about that fact aswell. lol

its just personal preference. people get so emotional about it one way or the other though ! lol

its just personal preference. people get so emotional about it one way or the other though ! lol

Yeah, personally I dont use them. Only kit lenses though. Maybe would be different if it was a 24-70 and not a 18-70dx

This is a recurring issue, and always worth revisiting.

If anyone is interested, that last huge discussion - prompted by Geoff's aquisition
of his beloved 85mm 1.4 - started in February 2007 and can be viewed here.

I filter.

Haha, interestingly enough, I've just realised that 2.5 years ago, I held the opposite opinion to the one I hold now. I used to have filters on all my lenses - good ones, almost all B+W MRC UV filters, plus B+W ND and CPL filters.

I've always used hoods on my lenses (apart from the 50/1.8, doesn't come with one) and figure that is plenty of protection. I took the 77mm filter off my 70-200VR and it is now a "floating" UV filter, able to be stuck on the end of any of my lenses should the need arise in the shape of large quantities of dust, sand or sea spray!! My regular arsenal all use 77mm filters... Tokina 12-24, Nikkor 17-55, Nikkor 70-200VR, Nikkor 85/1.4

For me it was always a peace of mind thing.. and I have moved onto having peace of mind that the hood provides enough protection. It's a personal thing... And clearly this opinion can change over time too

Interesting debate. I guess it is a matter of preference. I must admit I have my dobts on Hoya for I always thought it was a reputable brand thill I started noticing some inperfections on the glass but it was too late to return for I cannot remember where I bought them from.

DaveB wrote:I would try to remember to take the filters off when shooting in conditions where internal reflections might be an issue, but of course sometimes I forgot.

surenj wrote:If image quality is paramount, and you are noticing problems in your prints, then you can either get a better coated filter or temporariliy remove when shooting.

I just realised what's bugging me about that position (which used to be my own): it's the same as that espoused by people who stick to JPEG "except for important photos".
How can you be sure if it's going to be an important photo? And when you do realise, is it too late or do you have time to switch to RAW (or remove the filter)?

Everything tends to be a matter of assessing options, and making a choice.

For example - insurance. If you purchased insurance over many years and never made a claim,
you may well consider that insurance to have been wasted expenditure. On the other hand, you
may find yourself making an insurance claim well in excess of all the premiums you have paid.

You may have your UV filter on the front of your precious lens, and nothing ever happens to it,
and to make matters worse, you get an unforseen reflection in one or several of your shots. On
the other hand, there may be a mishap that puts a big scratch across your filter, which would
have otherwise been across the front element of your lens.

I have (protective) filters on all of my lenses, and I haven't had a problem with an image caused
by the filter, or damage to a filter which would have otherwise been to the lens. But I find that
layer of relatively disposable glass in front of my expensive lenses is comforting, amd devoid of
problems, so I will continue to use protective filters. What other people do, I could not care less.

i used to put "protective" filters on my lenses until earlier this year when I took some test shots and concluded that they slowed the exposure and introduced some softness into the image (only a little but noticeable if you were really looking for it).

given my lenses are not super fast to start with, I figured I did not need slow them any further. try it an see what I mean.

I always use a hood and keep the cap on when not in use.

I don't filter unless I'm going into the high country...or into a dusty or salty environment. Then I filter.

I use UV filters on all my lenses. I am sceptical that they can have a significant effect on resolution. The main reason is for protection, so I can clean the filter rather than the lens and so I can have a perfectly clean front element if I come to sell the lens (not that I'm particularly in the habit of doing that, though).

I purchased a 35-70mm f2.8 on ebay a while ago and found that the front element was scratched though undeclared. At least I got it for a reasonable price and I don't expect there is any appreciable effect on image quality. Still, I often take photos in the dark and have several times put a lens back in a compartment that I thought was empty only to find a lens in it that has lost its lens cap.

Flare could be more of a reason for me to remove the filter, especially since I take many of my shots in situations where that could be an issue. I can think of one image taken last year with a 24mm f2.8 AI with noticeable flare though it still doesn't worry me in the context of the image. I have recently bought a 17-35mm f2.8 which some reviews say can be susceptible to flare with a filter so i may remove it for shots of bands.

There is an interesting review of UV filters here, in which the most expensive do not necessarily come first.

Regards,
Murray

I have to admit that I am one that uses filters. All my lenses (other than my 17-50mm f/2.8 which has a Hoya Super HMC) have Marumi DHG Protect UV or Super DHG Protect UV filters. I have not found any difference in image quality using these filters and leaving the filters off, but have noticed huge difference when using cheap filters (the passport camera at work had a cheapo inca filter on it and it was TERRIBLE causing ghosts and reflection).

Filters give me the piece of mind that my lens is safe from scratches and dirt.

Im one in the emotional-based decision boat, i filter for the piece of mind

I take the filter off when shooting indoors. Outdoors I keep the filter on. I normally have a B&W "redhancer", not a UV filter.

Used to filter, now I don't. I had a filter shatter in Egypt, after a guard dropped my camera bag of the xray machine conveyor belt. The lens was ok, but it was a mess to clean up all the shattered bits of filter. I do have a filter I'll pack if I know I'm going somewhere dangerous (sand, salt, lots of dust) but it rarely makes it into the bag these days.

Having been on both sides of this fence, I can see validity in both arguements, it really comes down to personal preference and comfort levels.