UV and/or skylight filters

[summitar]

<p>Like many of you, I'm sure, I have used a UV or skylight filter on most of my lenses, not for their optical properties, but to provide protection against something impacting the front element of the lens. Yet in over 45 years of photography, these protective physical properties have never been required in my purely amateur experience.<br>

So I have been using something that may be degrading optical quality to guard against an extremely rare threat.<br>

Any thoughts on this? Should I continue to protect my lenses against something that has never occurred to me?</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>My opinion, scrap 'em. The protection theory is BS. The lens cap is the only condom your lens needs. If you are worried about UV you should be thinking polarizer. The skylight and UV filters main function is to hold dust and fingerprints in front of your film. Only my opinion!</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>It depends. I have used them with good effect for landscape work both wide angle and telephoto. Professionally, from the dust and dirt inside a coal mine to squirting blood inside a surgical suite, I was glad to have the filters in place. However, for most of my day-to-day hobby photography, people, nature, close ups, etc, I don't use them. I prefer modern B+W's for the best glass and coatings when I do use them. Please note I shoot negative stock. If I was still shooting transparencies in open shade I might use them but an 81 or 81b may be preferable.</p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Good point, Kerry. I guess that ever since lenses have been coated, a UV/skylight filter has probably been unnecessary from an optical viewpoint. I've never noticed much of a difference, with or without, with modern colour film However, I've seen more than one camera that's been dropped and damage done to the edge of the lens metalwork - especially when it's made of relatively soft alloy. </p>

<p>I've also seen instances where the same lost battle with gravity has happened, but a UV fllter took most of the force of the blow. So, solution - unscrew one stuffed filter, probably with broken glass - and throw away. Screw in new one. End of story - cost maybe a few bucks. </p>

<p>Now, same situation, but no protective filter - AAAHHH!! One horrendously bent/dented lens outer, far beyond the capabilities of those filter thread realignment gizmo tools to correct. Only solution - generally a new lens, unless it was one of those lenses like some Miranda Soligors where the front metalwork unscrewed and could be replaced.</p>

<p>Also, some folks just can't help but keep wiping lenses with anything close to hand - maybe their tie, handkerchief or a mucky kleenex. So the relatively soft multicoating of modern lenses is quickly scratched with those tell-tale abrasions and fine scratches. Surely the harder surface of a UV filter is ideal to prevent this sort of abuse?</p>

<p>PETE IN PERTH</p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>In many crowded cities of the world there is a lot of grime hanging in the air. We don't even see it. It deposits over time on the glass. If you have a filter of even plain glass it will protect the lens' surface. One can keep cleaning the filter and replace it when it develops scratches, and thus save the lens. Kerry in Seattle and Pete in Perth may not face much pollution! But many of us do in other parts of the world. I just cleaned two Skylight filters with household Ammonia! Regards, sp.</p>

[clay2]

<p>I rely on the lens shade to protect the lens.<br>

Use a Skylight filter in the moutains to cut the haze and add a little warmth.<br>

Only use the UV filter when it rains to keep water droplets off the lens glass.<br>

Best regards,</p>

<p>/Clay</p>

[k5083]

<p>I use them. Kerry, I'm surprised that their protective properties have not come in handy for you. You've never touched the front of your lens and gotten a fingerprint on it? I sure feel better wiping it off a filter, whether or not I have the proper cleaning materials at hand, than my lens. My goal is for my lens NEVER to be touched by ANYTHING, and that includes cleaning, if I can help it.</p>

<p>Lens caps are great for protecting your lens. So is keeping them in the closet. Both have serious deficiencies if you are actually going to take pictures.</p>

<p>Many of you will agree with me on this, but depart from me on the next point: I use the cheapest filters available, which is to say the $4.00 ones from China. I have accumulated some good, expensive filters here and there, and never seen a difference in the results between the good vs. cheap filters, or for that matter between no filter at all vs. cheap filters. Most of my lenses, including some very fine ones, have a market value (= replacement cost) of under $30. There is no point protecting those with a $30 filter. </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>" these protective physical properties have never been required in my purely amateur experience"</p>

<p>Ever get fingerprints on your filters?</p>

<p>I'm in the camp that would much rather clean a filter than the lens but will admit it is just a camp. I'm very unlikely to ever sell a lens, and maybe I should loosen up and take them off, but I'm stuck in my ways ;)</p>

[summitar]

<p>Thanks for your comments. I will probably continue to use them from force of habit, because, yes indeed, I have inadvertently left fingerprints on lenses. I don't shoot much black and white anymore, but when I do, most photos are improved by a yellow filter. For SLRs, I like to use a polarizing filter. My other habit, using neck straps, has probably saved me from dropping cameras. My one dropped camera experience, happened when trying to get a digital P&S, a Canon A95, out of jacket pocket. It fell on the pavement from waist level. Result, a nearly imperceptible ding on the camera, and continued perfect operation. Maybe there is something to those thoughts that modern plastics do a better job of protecting cameras than metal bodies.</p>

[nickc1]

<p>If you wreck a current lens, and it has no plain filter on the front you might be able to get it repaired, or your insurance (camera or household) might be able to replace it. If you do the same with a classic lens what are you going to spend the minute amount of compensation on - Can you be certain that you will be able to replace your pride and joy?<br>

I am of the opinion that a plain filter is unnecessary on a modern lens which is usually hard coated, and accidents that would be mitigated by one are rare - so I don't use them. On classic lenses which may be hard to repair or replace, or may have very soft coatings that might be damaged by too hard a clean I do use them. UV or skylight filters used for their warming properties are a totally different matter of course. <br>

I my case I would also need to think about the other side of your point ie: if 'degrading optical quality' is significant in a 'purely amateur experience' - with the superb equipment available today, at reasonable prices, the optical quality can often far exceed what I might need in my hobby photography.<br>

Nick</p>

[Dustin McAmera]

<blockquote>

<p>My other habit, using neck straps, has probably saved me from dropping cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too, sometimes; I have dropped a couple of my older cameras exactly because I stupidly trusted the ancient strap on the case.<br>

I like to have a UV filter; it does a different job from coating, even if you have coating. I struggle to find filters for a lot of lenses though, with odd-sized threads.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Never happens?<br /> Here is a dented copy of a Reflexa which is a British-marketed version of Mamiya's first SLR, the Prismat NP. It was also sold in the USA as a Tower 32B. On it was a copy of a Canon f/1.9 50mm lens in a modified Exakta mount (really!). Although it doesn't show clearly in this picture, the camera body is dented all over, and you can see the shape that the little Actina SUPER-SCRU filter is in. However, the Canon lens, the object of my desire, is absolutely pristine.<br /> To modify an old pilot's saying that originally applied to manually operated retractable landing gear:</p>

<p>There are two kinds of people in the world:<br /> Those who have dropped a camera<br /> and<br /> Those who are <em>going</em> to.</p>

<p>When it's on the camera and you need to grab a shot quickly, it doesn't do much bad to the image. When you are shooting in a planned way, it's easy to unscrew the filter.</p>

<p>But for protection against weather, dust, sticky fingers, and even the occasional tumble, priceless....</p><div></div>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I also use neck strap all the time: it is invaluable if your are swapping lens.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>Unfortunately, I have seen flare from cheaper filters, and even w/ the more expensive ones. This is w/ an adequate hood on the lens too. Still, I sometimes shoot around the ocean and you would have to be nuts to shoot there w/o a filter. Salt in the air is terrible for a coated lens. If I know I will be shooting someplace other than the oceanside and think I won't be able to come back and re-shoot I go w/o the filter, just to eliminate the possibility of a flare issue. Recently I had some shots ruined on my Leica R lens w/ a Leica UV drop in filter on it, but upon examining it I see that I had it in backwards and apparently only the outside is coated, not the inside, so I flipped it. But I don't trust it anymore, so off it goes when I'm out shooting.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>Ruined shot from flaring Leica UV filter. I wasn't even shooting into the sun, it was off to the side.</p><div></div>

[patrick_mont]

<p>I ALWAYS have something over the lens to keep it safe. I am just so nervous that something will come along and scratch it. I have had to replace the filters many times due to accidents. The lens was saved every time.</p>

[flatulent1]

<p>I use filters all the time. I'd much rather clean crap off of a $50 filter than a $500 lens.</p>

 

[Julio Fernandez]

<p>The UV/skylight also plays a role in correcting the color with slide film. Or, maybe, with Ektar at noon in a clear day. Easy to try an A-B test and compare, if in doubt. It is most important in high altitudes.</p>

[david_mcewan]

<p>Several years ago I went to Europe for a holiday. I took a Canon EOS body with a Tamron 28-200 fitted with a UV filter. One day while getting on a bus I dropped the camera onto the road. It hit lens first and pieces of glass fell out of the front of the lens.<br>

Fortunately, the glass was from the filter. It took some time to get the filter ring off the lens, but to my relief I found that the lens thread was not damaged. Since then I do not leave home without a filter on the camera lens I am using. </p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Dirt, scratches, Damage... ??? It's obvious that you guys don't use lens caps. No camera lens has ever been damaged when you are using it. It's when your running through the crowd and the three cameras around your neck are slamming into one another or tossing them around in a car or bus, or even banging around in the overcrowded camera bag ,or in a hurry packing.. your hands are full and you accidentally drop it. etc. For Pete's sake put a lens cap on it and you won't have dirt, scratches, bent filter threads, or any of the above so called reasons for needing a worthless piece of glass in your picture. And<strong> if you ARE using it as a lens cap</strong> for the supposed reasons listed above, you sure don't want that filthy scratched up thing in your pictures, so you will be taking it off before you shoot anyway, right? So why not use a good aluminum cap to really protect your lens.. As far as UV protection goes; on most photos you should be using a real filter of some kind anyway, (not a worthless UV or Skylight) and most of them provide UV protection.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>The occasional UV filtering of overcast shadows, I agree is better handled with a 81B, and Haze is better handled with specific Haze filters with specified cutoffs. But neither one need to be on there all the time. Sometimes you need other things, and sometimes nothing. Never knowing just what we will need at the time, we have special filters for all kinds of situations. And we carry all our filters very carefully in cases, so they don't get dirty or scratched for when we need them.</p>

<p>UV protection is a crack up, Like we need a SPF 50 so our lens or shutter doesn't get cancer or something? Using a filter as a lens cap is a crack up. Like you are really going to leave that dirty thing in your picture, give me a break! Physical protection is a crack up. Like you are going to try to protect something from damage by shielding it with a thin piece of GLASS!<br>

Why don't people think, and question, and reason for themselves, instead of doing something because they were told to. Can you imagine how many millions of these worthless pieces of glass have been sold because someone told people they need to have it on there all the time for protection. Someone made a lot of money off of these.</p>

<p> </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Flare can be dependent on the lens as much as the presence of a UV filter (or hood), as in my experience with the Canon 24-70 and 24-105:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TE6R">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TE6R</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Cliff,<br>

Except when you're using a rangefinder, it's difficult to actually be taking pictures if you leave the lens cap on. ;)</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>JDM, apparently it's not that hard for some people. By keeping that dirty, scratched, damaged worthless piece of glass on the camera all the time, including when taking pictures, it is effectively shooting with a dirty lens cap on.</p>

<p>I have, and use, lots of filters. I have so many, I keep them in their own camera case, with adapters, rings, hoods, and shades to fit all of my cameras. So whatever camera I take to the field, I always grab the filter bag. holding literally hundreds of filters. Series IV, V, Vi, VII, 49mm, 52mm, 67mm. All different types of filters like diffusion filters, ND filters, Variable ND, filters, gradients, star filters, cross screens, halo, polarizers, haze filters, 80, 81, 82 series K1, K2 yellow, various red, , various green, some coral filters and others. I never leave the house with out the filter bag weather its a view camera or if I'm just using a little folder. I have filter rings and hoods for all of them, even the Balda 35mm and the B2 Cadet box camera.</p>

<p>So I don't often shoot with a bare lens, and when I use a filter it comes from the case "Clean and undamaged" and goes onto a clean lens that the cap has just been removed from. I don't use filters for protection, but rather I use them for their intended purpose, and keep them protected and clean just like any other lens. If I leave my truck with a few of them in my pocket they are still protected with stack caps so they don't get damaged. I thought everyone handled filters this way. I still say the clear worthless filters that the marketeers say are the most popular and should stay on the camera always; should be tossed and replaced with real protection, such as screw in aluminum lens caps, and all of your real filters should be protected until they are to be used in their appropriate circumstance. Anything less is just not good practice to me. But that's just my opinion.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>I guess I should amend my statement one more time. That is the way I used to handle my filters and cameras. Now I'm getting so sick and broke, I rarely leave the house, <strong>but I still remember how I did it.</strong></p>