UV/Skylight Filters

<p>Hello All<br>

I would just like to get peoples opinions on using UV/Skylight filters.I have read a lot lately that they degrade photo's. I know that most people like me only use them to protect the lens. Your thoughts greatly appreciated.<br>

Ray </p>

<p>Ray, in theory, no matter how perfect a piece of glass you put in front of your lens, it will have a degrading effect- however slight it may be- on image quality. That having been said, I've A-B'd my lenses with and without high-quality, coated protection filters for years and have been unable to see quality loss. </p>

<p>On my Nikon lenses, I use Nikon L37c coated UV filters. I also use lens hoods to prevent flare.</p>

<p>Then too, I can't afford to have pricey lenses scratched. I just bought a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for $1,800. You bet I'm going to put a $90 protection filter over the lens.</p>

<p>The is one I am sort of on the fence about. I think that a lot of this has to do with the type of shooting you do and the quality of the filter. I shoot in a lot of dusty/muddy environment, so a protection filter is really important to me, but I make sure that I have a good one on my lens.</p>

<p>Some people say that if the lens manufacturer wanted another peice of glass there, then the lens would have come with it. Well my answer to that is that Nikon and Canon both make filters including protection filters. While it is possible that a cheap filter such as a Tiffen will degrade image quality, if you are willing to shell out the dough for a good one, I don't think you'll notice the difference. I have a Hoya HD Digital filter on my 50 f/1.4 and don't notice any difference with or without it. Of course, if you look at this filter you can barely see the glass which has almost no reflection. I have Nikon filters on some of my other lenses, but if I had my way I would switch them all out for Hoya HD filters.</p>

<p>I honestly don't think everyone needs a protection filter. If you shoot in nice clean environments, and keep a hood on your lens (for protection) there isn't much point to one. Of course you also need to keep in mind that camera salesmen like filters because they have a much better margin than lenses. I bought a used 300 f/4 that had a Skylight filter on the front (88mm) and a skylight filter on the drop in filter. Why anyone would buy a skylight filter for a drop in filter, I have NO idea; other than the salesman must have been on his game the day he sold that lens new. Anyways, I am a proud owner (by accident) of a quarter sized protection filter.</p>

<p>I use them when and where appropriate to protect the lens. When the risk is low I remove them. I'm not sure why this topic is so often subject to religious fervor, with cries of "Always!" and "Never!" (Tho' so far this particular thread hasn't gotten to that point.)</p>

<p>They're just tools. Use 'em when appropriate. Use a good quality protective filter to minimize degradation. Remove 'em when not needed or when the risk of flare outweighs the benefits of protection.</p>

<p>Even if they do actually degrade my photo quality, I think the quality I can get out of my lenses is enough for my amateur needs. I always put filters on for two reasons a) Peace of mind and b) You do not want to stick a 70-200vr or 300/4 with no filter up against a rough fence - more or less what I do almost every weekend ;-)<br>

Alvin</p>

<p>Sometimes I need to take and put the camera inside any bag continuosly without using a cap, then I like to use a filter. The same under dusty or spray environments. </p>

<p>Under "normal" clean conditions I don`t use them. </p>

<p>The skylight filters is actually a mild warming filter. The UV is supposed to reduce haze. Both do offer protection for your lenses. Protecting your gear is always a good idea. I personally use neither of them because I so frequently am using a CPL and a ND grad filter and it's just more of a problem juggling everything about. I have never scratched a lens in many years of shooting. I do not know about degrading the photos actually. I think it's possible that a high quality multi coated filter could reduce flare or then maybe not. I think from a protection standpoint if you are concerned about your equipment safety then purchase one and try it out for a while and then purchase more for your other lenses if it still seems like a good idea after your filter trial.</p>

<p>I shoot film with Nikon F3HP and F2A bodies. ALL my lenses have either an L37c UV filter or a Y48 yellow filter on it. There is no visible image degradation, unless you use a microscope LOL.<br>

If you shoot digital, then it's another story. Digital lenses with filters really seem to be prone to flaring. YMMV.</p>

<p>Nope, don't use them. For years I didn't even have lens caps. Now with my newer cameras at least I use those. I do use some other filters sometimes though like diffusers or warming, FL etc. but none that stay on the lenses. It's a personal desicion though, if you want them just buy good multi-coated ones and keep everything clean,filters accumulate a film on them then they get foggy, some filters are laminated and lens cleaner can make them have small bubbles. If you use Schott glass filters like B+W or Hasselblad and keep the film off with a chamois they're usually OK.</p>

<p>My photography professor thought I was crazy putting a one hundred dollar filter over a 2,500 piece of glass. I on the other hand, thought it was crazy not to put an additional layer of protection over the 2,500 piece of glass! And, don't forget that each filter has its' own significant purpuse. I like UV filters! I hate haze. And always buy the best filter you can afford.<br>

good luck,<br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>My first photography teacher in college, an assistant professor, was purist who thought protection filters were blasphemy. I might have come around to his way of thinking, but a few weeks into the semester, the front element of his 35mm f/2.0 Summicron M lens was destroyed by paint overspray on a construction site- the lens was off at Leica for months on end having the front element either cleaned and recoated or replaced- I forget which. Since then, I've viewed expensive protection filters as a necessary evil. </p>

<p>Personally I see no need for them other than when you are working at a racetrack to name but one example. Even if you would get a little scratch it would most likely be out of focus and wouldn't affect overall sharpness.</p>

<p>The degrading effect they are supposed to have is, if real, also very dependent on your needs. I mean when you're not going to print anything larger than 8x10 it won't be a problem will it?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My photography professor thought I was crazy putting a one hundred dollar filter over a 2,500 piece of glass.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Frankly I think he has a point Michael</p>

<p>I figure the only people who need filters are those with skin oil on their finger tips.</p>

<p>They are a contemptible waste of time and money for all but a handful of photographers. The coating on modern lenses is incredibly tough and will easily deal with sand and rain. If you want to protect your lens against physical blows then a lens hood is what you should have on and indeed lens hoods have saved my bacon on a few occasions over the years (tripods blowing over in a gale etc).<br>

The only people who really need them are photographers who spend a lot of time shooting in windy, salt spray conditions such as off yachts and so forth and who constantly have to rub their front elements dry. I have shot in plenty of nasty conditions and have never found myself bemoaning the absence of a protection filter.</p>

<p>UV filter? Sure; if you are working above 10,000 feet.</p>

<p>Protection? Make your own risk asscessment based on the shooting environment.</p>

<p>Image degradation? Noticeable? Yes. Then take it off. No. Leave it on.</p>

<p>What's the issue here?<br>

Do what works for <strong>YOU.</strong></p>

<p>I agree with this post by Thom:</p>

<p>http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm</p>

<p>As said, if shooting is salt water or construction sites (!) or other hazardous places, then a <em>good</em> UV filter can protect your investment. But true story, I have a friend who shoots ball games with some <em>very</em> nice glass. At times the images are tack sharp, other times there is random softness. The lenses have even been sent in for testing calibration but the inconsistencies continued. I suggested taking the UV filter off the lenses. No more issues since doing that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"They are a contemptible waste of time and money for all but a handful of photographers"</p>

<p>Why get get so strident about <em>other</em> people's decisions?</p>

<p>Try shooting downwind of thermal features in Yellowstone Park during high winds and you will use filters. My experience ruined an expensive polarizer, not a lens before I realized what was happening. As mentioned above use according to conditions or not, whatever works for you.</p>

<p>I have used these filters occasionally while shooting in in HARSH conditions (example: blowing sand) *AND* I'm not using any other filter (CPL, grad ND, etc.) at the time. At any other time, it's a waste to have these on my lenses. I use ND grads frequently, and I don't want to have to unscrew a UV filter in order to attach an adapter ring.</p>

<p>That said, if you're concerned that you're going to damage a lens element, then by all means, use a UV filter. Better safe than sorry. I figure that even if I do damage an element, I can probably have it replaced. But if you don't want to take the risk, that's a legitimate concern.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Try shooting downwind of thermal features in Yellowstone Park during high winds and you will use filters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Try shooting a food fight in a college frat house dining room. :-)</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /> <strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>It's surprising how little effect on picture quality a few scratches in the front element will have. Two of my best lenses (based on recent photos) have ugly scratches on the front element, one courtesy of the TSA and the other (as I've heard the story from the former owner) a granite rock. If there's any effect on image quality I can't see it. I wonder what would have happened in either case if shards of broken UV filter were added to the incidents.</p>

<p>OTOH I have seen weaker color saturation from the added reflections from the two surfaces of my Nikon UV filters. Except for situations where the probability of abrasion or flying gunk is high, I don't use them any more. YMMV.</p>

<p>For me:<br>

The best lens protection I know of is a lens cap. The best fall protection is a camera strap. The best bang protection is a camera bag.<br>

I bought into the UV thing, and when I got crazy and took the lens filters off there was a dramatic improvement in the images. As a result, I will not use inexpensive filters again. I now only use polarizers, and neutral density filters. Nikon grade filters, for me. If i need a filter for effect, then I go to the Cokin stuff. That pretty much is it<br>

I also read an article from Thom Hogan about lens filters. And I agree with it.<br>

That's just me.</p>

<p>I recently dropped a lens which resulted in a cracked filter. I'm glad i didn't damage the front element. When conditions are clean (eg not raining) I will remove the filter with the lens cap.</p>

<p>Hugh--<br>

Once, my Nikon 80-400mm VR on tripod was blown over by a wind gust and landed "face" down. It had a B+W polarizer on it. The filter broke and the broken shards scratched the heck out of my front element. I sent the lens in for repairs (even the mount was broken off.) The cost to replace the entire front element was $80. The cost of the B+W filter was $120. So how about that--If I had no filter on it would have actually save me $120! If I had the lens cap on there likely would have been no damage at all. Same for having the lens hood on to cushion the blow. I think UV filters are a waste of time 99% of the time. I've had many photos ruined because of them, basically because of flare/ghosting. I have Nikon's best pro zooms and do not use any filters on them other than polarizers when needed. I photo almost daily, in the toughest conditions the Dakota can dish out. My lenses are perfect. I do use the lens cap as its very tough plastic is designed to protect the lens. A lens hood is great protection too. A UV filter is flimsy and no real protection at all. One of the Nikon gurus (Thom Hogan?) recently had on his blog a shot he made of motocross bikes in the mud. He put his Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 a few feet from the dirt track and remote fired the motorcycle. The lens was caked in mud that was flung by the rear wheel of the powerful motorcycle. He had no "protection" filter on. He said he cleaned the lens up and it was perfect. Modern coatings are actually harder than the glass under them. My more expensive lenses already have a "protection" element built in that's cheaper to replace than what a quality filter would cost. So no, I don't take a chance on UV filters ruining my shots. When I buy used lenses on e Bay and they come with a filter on it, first thing I do is take it off and throw it away. They aren't worth the trouble they can cause. Again, I have over $6,000 worth of lenses, don't use filters, photo i TOUGH conditions, and all my lenses are perfect. As for using a skylight filter, totally forget that. They will color snow and everything else that's white as pink. Waste of money. <br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml</a></p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

<p>To answer the question, yes, UV-Skylight filters will degrade the image. You will not notice the image degradation. However, poor quality filters will noticeably degrade the image. Use the high quality brand name filters.<br />When using uncoated filters, you will likely get ghosting or flare when photographing against the light, eg. sunsets, full moon, silhouettes. Expensive multicoated filters will substantially reduce or eliminate ghosting or flare phenomenon.<br />I use high quality coated and multicoated filters for Color and Black&White photographs when I need them. But, in case I photograph a bright light in the frame, I take off all unnecessary glass surfaces.<br />Remember, every time a ray of light passes through glass it is changed forever.</p>