UV Filters, when to use them?

I have absolutely no need for UV filters as protection for my lenses. Glass is

pretty strong and scratch resistant. I don't think it makes sens to be putting

on a cheap piece of glass infront of something you paid $1000+ for the best

optics. The filter would just reduce the optical performance (even if it's

slightly).

 

Now, enough about my ranting. What I want to know is if you've ever found a

situation where the UV filter increases optical performance, or increases

saturation. On the covers of ads for UV filters, there's always some sky shot

where the unfiltered image looks washed out. I've never experience such a huge

difference in captured image from UV filters. Have you?

 

If you have, then when's a good time to use them? Is there a specific angle wrt

the sun where the filtering would be most effective?

No. I'm one of the monkeys that has a UV filter so that he can clean it on his shirt without worrying too much about it.

And I'm one of those monkeys who destroyed, or at least rendered uneconomical to repair, a

lens when I forgot to leave the lens hood on and it swung back and scraped against a stone

wall.

On the covers of ads for orange juice, there's always a beautiful girl - that makes it taste better.

In 30 years I've never damaged the front element of a lens due to not having a filter mounted on it all the time.

 

In general filters will decrease contrast (except for polarizers) or at best have no effect on contrast.

 

I've never found a situation where a UV filter actually did much. The theory is that they block UV at altitude so that shots in the mountains don't come out with a blue cast when you're shooting slides. With digital and film color correction is easy and with digital auto white balance might even eliminate such a color cast anyway.

 

So I'd probably leave one on the lens if I was climbing Everest and shooting slide film.

 

The other situation I'd use on in is if shooting in an area where there was flying "stuff" that might be difficult to clean off the lens or damage it, such as sea spray or mud or small stones (from some sort of sporting event).

I always keep a UV filter on my lens. If you have a $1000 lens, use a high quality multi coated UV filter from Heliopan or B+W. I've been taking pictures for more than 20 years, and I bring my cameras on long hikes, and I've never dropped my camera... except one time. The drop destroyed the hood and the strong filter ring prevented any damage to the lens. Another thing is it's always better to just clean the filter rather then the lens front element, that will prevent any cleaning marks from developing over time. It's true that a filter can lower contrast and cause flare, but that's when you're pointing towards a light source; when that happens, just remove the filter.

 

Also yes, I've seen UV filter cutting out atmostpheric haze, but it can never eliminate all of them. Actually, I've found polarizer can be effective in cutting out haze, especially in the morning and late afternoon. One time I was taking pictures at the Grand Teton Range. It was in the morning (8am) and the atmosphere was quite hazy in the distance. A guy came by while I was preparing my shoot and said the distant haze really ruined the picture. I let me looked through my camera with a polarizer on and he was amazed at how clear it was through the polarizer.

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/">Optical glass blocks many UV wavelengths, and while some UV filters improve on this, many UV filters don't block much of anything.</a></p>

 

<p>Unless the "haze" is actually UV (in which case you can't detect it with a human eye so you won't know it's there until you see your photos), a UV filter won't fix it. If the haze is actually haze, well, the reason it looks hazy is that some of the light has been scattered in random directions along the path from the subject to you. A UV filter can't undo random scattering. A polarizer sometimes can help, if some of the scattered light is polarized; also, since a polarizer often results in pictures with increased contrast and/or saturation, it can sometimes undo the loss of saturation and contrast that results from haze.</p>

 

<p>In many cases, though, UV filters are not useful for much of anything besides protection, and as you know, there's a neverending debate over whether the protection they offer your lens is worth the potential for image degradation that inevitably results from putting another piece of glass, with a pair of surfaces, in front of the lens.</p>

I have never used a filter for "protection" in over 40 years and don't have a single damaged lens, other than external finish being worn.

 

I have never been able to see any improvement in color, contrast, etc., by using a UV filter. Canon's DSLR's have a filter in front of the sensor that will filter much more UV than a screw-on filter ever could. It is also my understanding that the glass in the EF lenses, for the most part, also filters out a good bit of the UV spectrum. Thus, UV filters are essentially useless unless you want to put "glasses" on the camera for "protection".

The answer to your main qustion is, Use a good quality UV FILTER when you feel the need for its protection or WHEN you're un easy without it.

 

AS FOR THE image quality effect question. MY answer is to try it YOURSELF, so that you wont have to ask that question AGAIN, cause you'll know by your own expirience, THE ANSWER.

 

Just don't buy a NO NAME CHEAP FILTER, THEY'RE garranteed to DEGRADE your image, NOT improving.

The only time I use UV filters is when shooting at the shore with there is a possibility of salt

spray. In that case, I do throw on a filter (and usually my Storm Covers) as I'd rather get the

spray on the filter than on the front element of the lens.

UV filter tend to cut the effects of haze.

 

I noticed it a lot when shooting BW with older lens.

 

I like to wipe of the filter with my shirt too. I

don't have to worry about scratching the lens coating.

 

Is there image degradation with the UV? Very slight with

a good filter. Nobody complains about image degradation

when using polarizing filters or stacking color correction filters!

I use a UV filter on ALL my lenses, all the time. I've lost count of how many times I've had soap bubbles blown on the lens, juice or drinks sprayed or spilt on it, sand, stones, and other stuff tossed or thrown on it. Whenever I'm photographing parties the filter always gets something on it. There was a kid at my daughter's birthday who came with her finger full of cake and cream, poked my lens (filter) and asked what that was. To me, it would be stupid to go around without a filter.

UV filters may theoretically cut haze. UV is scattered more than visible light, so if the film/sensor responds to UV, it may see UV scattered haze. You can't see it, since you can't see UV, but if you see visible haze, the UV haze will be even worse. However most filters don't actually cut much UV and most lenses filter most of it out anyway so the addition of a "UV" filter may have minimal effect.

 

If you actually have and want to cut UV haze, the Tiffen Haze filters do filter out most UV.

 

If you're shooting in B&W a red filter will cut out far more haze thean a UV filter becsue it will remove scattered visisble light too, except for the red, and the red is the least scattered.

 

You can cut out even more haze by shooting IR.

I don't think that UV filters cut UV any more than the glass elements of a lens. Cheap glass of any kind cuts UV to almost nil. If you don't believe me, then find a window with full midday sun. Put on your swim suit, sit in front of the full sun shining through the window glass and see if you get a tan/burn. You will get hot because glass transmits IR. Try the same thing with no window glass between you and the sun and your skin will burn.

 

That said, I never used UV filters with my Leica lenses but I use very high quality multi coated UV filters on my Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. I use B&W MRC filters on both lenses. The reason that I use filters on the Canons (even with the excellent lens hoods) is because my Canon lenses seem to attract more filth more guickly and I seem to have a more difficult time cleaning my Canon lenses. My Leica lenses may be a bit more recessed from the front of the mount. I don't use a filter on my Canon 50mm f/1.8 II.