Should you use a UV filter on your lenses ?

Should you use a UV filter on your Canon lenses ?

 

Allot of photographers shun UV filters because they claim it degrades the final

image. John Shaw who is a famous nature photographer never uses them. In his

book 'The Nature Photographer's complete guide to professional field

techniques' John Shaw claims 'why buy an expensive lens and then add a cheap UV

filter to it, it makes no sence !'.

 

I myself have never tested the difference between a picture taken with a UV

filter and one without it. Maybe on the next rainy day, I will. If a UV filter

degrades the image substantially, then I would say that John Shaw is right, but

if the degradation is minimal, then I would say it doesn't hurt having one on.

 

Most of the advice that I got from photographic sources(about 95%) so far say

that UV filters are essential. They protect your lens as well as eliminating

Ultra Violet rays(unseen) in the atmosphere that might degrade your picture as

well.

 

I hate to brag, but my Canon 70-200 IS F2.8 lens arrived by UPS a couple of

days ago. I stocked up on peanut butter, chopped beef, and spagetti because

that's going to be my diet for the next couple of months. I was testing the

lens sitting on my living room couch, when all of a sudden, I could not find

the lens-cap. At first I panicked, but then that panic turned into fear,

imagine if I was in the field somewhere.

 

Maybe a cheap UV filter is not that bad after all. If you have to get critical

you can allways take it off ! I still have to test the difference between

having one on and not, there is not allot of data on that. Has anybody here

ever tried testing a lens with or without the UV filter ? Thanks

I did a somewhat scientific test one time using various brands of UV filters. My camera was on a tripod to ensure the same condition from frame to frame. I did find that the frames without a filter had less flare from the sun. Multi-coated filters did better than non-coated. I usually take filters with me, but don't put them on the lens unless I'm afraid of getting anything splashed on the front element from rain, etc.

Most photographers won't use them because they will lower the overall contrast of the image, but if you are going into a harsh environment, such as the beach with salt spray and sand, then use them. But if you are doing any backlit shots then they will noticably degrade your images through increased flair. The mulitcoated versions are better, but it's still a tradeoff as to what's more important to you, protection or image quality.

I would aggree with Adrian, unless I am shooting where I feel it is likely to get something on the front element or high altitude mountain scenes, I shoot naked. low angle shooting kids playing at the beach, base of waterfalls, rain, trackside at MC/auto races (lost a 300 f4 to a chunk of gravel kicked up by a passing car) are the only times I use UV filters.

I personally think that the question of whether one "should" use a UV filter differs somewhat from whether the filter degrades the image quality. This topic comes up from time to time and I've included two links below which illustrate the debate over whether photographers should use UV filters or not. I would say that if you will be eating peanut butter, ground beef, and spaghetti because of your lens purchase, you may want to buy yourself a UV filter to protect that lens. You can always remove the filter for certain shots.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F7lJ

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H7MG

ha, ha, Mark. I shoot naked, too. But seriously, UV filters are a lot of effort for minimal return. I would take them off for shots into the sun, but then they were one extra gizmo to carry in hand. You had to remember that it was on, and then consider removing it before putting on a polarizing filter. Ultimately you end up carrying so much extra unnecessary crap that life gets too complicated. I leave the hood on all the time, and am careful with my equipment. I don't expect the front element to be the limiting factor regarding my equipment lifespan.

"The mulitcoated versions are better, but it's still a tradeoff as to what's more important to you, protection or image quality."

 

Mike, included with the 70-200mm lens, I also purchased a kit of Tiffen filters. A polarizing filter, a warming filter, an enhancing filter(This is new) and of course a UV filter. The salesman convinced me that I could not do without these set of filters.

 

Now why is it that 'famous' photographers are not complaining about the Polarizer, the Warming, or the NEW enhancing filters, degrading their image as they are about the dreaded UV filter ?

 

Question #2: are 'Tiffen' filters any good ?

I just stick them on all my lens and leave them there, using either top quality B+W or Hoya for my L's, or decent quality for others. I think they're most prone to add flare on night shots with street lights and similar, but not sure. BTW, I'm a total amateur, so...

 

Trying to decide when it's a good time for a filter is too much for me. Typically what contacts one of my filters is a finger (or lens, if the filter wasn't there), and that can happen at any time.

 

It would be interesting to hear opinion/technique on cleaning lens, since it seems this is what we're trying to avoid. How durable are the front element coatings, what's a good technique, what do multiple cleanings do to a lens?

 

I do not advocate shooting naked at anytime ;D

I don't go anywhere without UV filters.

 

Lens hoods are nice. . .but don't fit in my bag very well, and don't provide anywhere near the protection of a lens filter. I rarely use them. I occassionally get flare issues with the 17-40/4L. . but nothing a baseball cap can't solve :)

 

I highly value my polarizer filters. Not sure what the point of warming filters are in these days of dSLR's.

<i>"a <b>warming</b> filter, an <b>enhancing</b> filter ... The salesman convinced me that I could not do without these set of filters."</i><P>

 

Are you shooting digital, or film? If you are shooting digital, then you were fed a line of bull**** in order to get you to part with more of your money.

Jim, I'm surprised to hear that you don't use a hood. For me, the hood is critical, at least with my longer lenses. Even if you don't notice it on every shot, you will get internal flare from extraneous light that flattens contrast. For me, the hood is there for protection as well. I've been hit by volleyballs on the hood, and I once dropped my 70-200 onto the hood. It's added insurance with actual improvement in image quality as well, in contrast to the competing issues seen with UV filters.

"Now why is it that 'famous' photographers are not complaining about the Polarizer, the Warming, or the NEW enhancing filters, degrading their image as they are about the dreaded UV filter ?"

 

Polarizers have a specific use to obtain a desired effect.I don't know what purpose warming filters would have on a DSLR, nor am I aware what is meant by the broad term "enhancing filters". UV filters are used strictly for protection, unless you're taking pictures at a high enough elevation that UV would actually present a problem. Their value as protection as oppossed to their potential for image degradation is the question. I'm in the "never use 'em unless there's a chance for environmental damge to the lens" camp. Good luck.

Harry, all filters are a tradeoff. When you need a polarizing filter (or warming, enhancing, etc.) for the special effects or benefits they give you then the tradeoff is worth it. But they are only used under specific circumstances, not all the time.

I never use UV filters on my L lenses, though I always keep lens caps on them for

protection and most of the time use hoods as well.

 

I enjoyed the ironic humor of your John Shaw quote: "why buy an expensive lens and then

add a cheap UV filter?" Well, actually, anyone who buys expensive lenses is probably going

to use _expensive_ UV filters as well, right?

 

That said, I still suspect that any improvements that might accrue from diminishing the

amount of UV getting to the sensor are going to be very small - so small that they are not

likely to counterbalance the negative (though possibly also small) effects of adding an

unnecessary extra piece of glass.

OK so UV filters, Warming filters, so-called Enhancement filters should be used to get a specific effect. They should only be placed on your lens if you need them. A UV filter does not have much effect except to block out Ultra-Violet rays(whatever they are). They can also be used to protect your very expensive lens. Then it's a no-brainer if the UV filter does not degrade the image substantially, and if perfection is not an issue.

 

How many of us can decide when to use one, or when to take one off. I'm guessing that John Shaw chose not to use UV filters, because of his mastery of light and because he shoots allot of Close-Ups. Sorry but I'm not at that level. I think I'll keep mine one until I can prove that they degrade the picture substantially.

"I think I'll keep mine one until I can prove that they degrade the picture substantially"

 

That's what I opt for. I'm sure it *is* causing some degrading of sharpness, and sometimes introduces reflections, but very little, and you would have to be clairvoyant to know when it'll be needed, all the time. An inadvertant fingerprint is my usual contact with the filter.

 

As to lens caps, I figure if the camera is slung around my neck or on my shoulder, I take the cap off (the filter), and stow it in a front pocket.

"To UV or not to UV: that is the question."

 

Or at least it was in pre-quantum, binary logic days. But there is a third point of view: To UV helps you if you think it will!

 

In other words, the value of UV is Schrödinger-dependent on the mental state of the user. I don't mean that it's an expression of neurotic concern; rather, I mean that if you think a UV filter will help you protect your lens then it will.

 

Of course, if you change your mind later on, then the UV will no longer help to protect your filter. So belief is the critical ontological factor: When you stop believing in the power of the UV, it loses its power. This is just a matter of common sense :-)

Filters from Hoya's S-HMC line can be had cheap on ebay. The stuff's so clear you can barely tell any glass is there when you inspect it.

I have UV filters on all my lenses,that I really care about. I have had UV lenses save a lens that was dropped.I think its a small price to pay for protection and if I am shooting into the sun, I have been known to take the filter off for the shot and then replace it. I do not find that a filter degrades the quality to a extent where I can tell. I do find it intersting that the same Leica photographers who say they never use a filter in front of a leica lens, don't squeel that on their M8 that they have to use a magenta correction filter to make the color correct.

I don't know about UV filters exclusively, but I keep a protective filter on all the lenses I can (can't do my fisheye or a lens baby). I use good ones that are multi-coated to reduce flare and ghosting. If the light is such that flare or ghosting might be a risk, I take the 'guard' filter off, conditions permitting.

 

Personally, I do have UV filters, but prefer to use 'skylight' filters, as I almost never shoot in bright, direct sunlight. Even considering WB adjustment, I like the 'look' it gives me.

 

Even though today's lens multi-coatings might make a 'regular' UV filter obsolete (as opposed to a 'UV cut' filter), on more than one occasion I've been very happy I had something covering the front lens element. IMO, Murphy was an optimist.

My choice of lenses include some vintage Leicas from the 50's and 60's. Some of the elements are made with lead content glass (think about how soft crystal is). Therefore, I use good quality filters on my lenses.

A *thin* (the glass, not the mount) multi-coated UV filter like Hoya SMC or other well regarded brand, when used with a hood, and when used on mid-focal length lenses, doesn't degrade image quality enough for anybody outside a lab to detect. The degradation FUD isn't worth worrying about under those conditions. You might see a difference with very long or very short lenses, and given some of the zooms available today, that's a concern. IMO, still not enough to give up the protection they offer. There are so many other things that degrade image quality more, like not using a tripod, that you should worry about first. If you look at used lenses under the right lighting, and with a magnifier, you'll see that most people inflict a fair amount of damage due to improper cleaning methods, no matter how wonderful they think their techniques are. "Pristine" used glass invariably isn't. Much better to inflict multiple cleanings on replaceable filters, than to permanently degrade the flare performance of your lens. I use UV filters on most lenses, and clean the lens surfaces every several years, if that. If a filter surface gets damaged, so what- I replace it. IMO, in a situation where you don't have time to remove the filter, there are lots of other things degrading your image more than the filter. Where you do have time to remove it, conditions are probably more conducive to it making a difference.

A decent UV filter will NOT degrade an image to the point you will see it. If you do notice it you must be superman. In any case it could easily be corrected in post processing. John Shaw is probably correct though "in theory"...but then again he probably shoots medium or large format with bellows or hoods to protect the lens. Furthermore which such equipment he probably takes far more care and consideration with his equipment taken when taking pictures. digital 35mm-style SLR photographers style of picture taking is faster and rougher and therefore should take more precautions especially with expensive lenses.

I hike a lot. Yesterday, I was leaning in over a ledge, knelt down to set up the frame. In the bright sunlight, I didn't see the stiff twig that was near invisible against the rock. It hit the uv filter while the camera was still cupped in my right hand. No damage (while levering myself up, I took another thin branch in the cuticle of a finger, drawing blood). Last year, a similar thing happened to a lens w/o a uv. I don't use it much anymore, but I learned what 'protecting the lens" means. In neither instance did the lens hood help.

I just took mine off for the first time in about 5-6 years on my 100-400 IS lens - I was shooting a rugby match last week and between that and the polarizer I wasn't getting the clarity I wanted on a sunny day.

 

that said, I kept the lens hood on, took off the polarizer and UV filter (per advice given on this site), and shot, and the pics look pretty good. I haven't post-processed yet, but if they turn out as well as they look on the LCD screen, then I may resort to not using one on game days.

 

sheryl