Lens Filters

[animal]

<p>I am hoping this is the right forum to post this message and this maybe a silly question but would like someone to confirm. Does using a UV filter on a great lens reduce the quality of the picture due to the picture being taken through the filter instead of just the lens without the filter. Maybe a silly question but please forgive me as I am new to all this<br>

Thanks </p>

[craigd]

<p>There is some disagreement on this issue, so you can expect replies saying yes and others saying no.</p>

<p>UV filters come in different quality levels. The best, such as B&W's multi-coated filters, should not reduce image quality in most cases, but you still might want to remove them when shooting night scenes featuring bright lights, because light can reflect off the camera's sensor back to the filter, and then back to the sensor, creating ghost images. Cheaper filters, especially if not multi-coated, are more likely to have this problem to a greater degree, and therefore the problem may be noticeable in a wider variety of situations.</p>

<p>For expensive lenses you may want a filter simply to protect the front of the lens (and in some cases to ensure that the lens is fully weather-sealed). For this purpose, you don't really need a UV filter; there are good-quality clear filters that would do just as well.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Hi Brett,</p>

<p>As Craig said, this is a highly controversial question, certainly not "silly" by any means.</p>

<p>Short answer...<br /> I've kept UV filters on all of my Nikon and Hasselblad lenses for many decades, for protection and to keep the front lens element clean. I've never noted any visible image degradation. Of course, I choose the best filters I can find.</p>

<p>I do remove the UV filter when using other filters or a polarizer. It's not a good idea to stack filters, since you can get lots of reflections from adjacent parallel surfaces.</p>

<p>By contrast I do not have UV filters on the lenses for the view camera, since it's only used in-studio, never outside.</p>

<p>Long answer...<br /> Theoretically, whenever you add an element in an optical system you introduce non-linearities which can show up as distortion or aberrations of various types.</p>

<p>So the answer to your question is one of degree. How much is the image degraded? This will vary for each combination of filter and lens (by brand, model, and vintage), i.e. an almost infinite number of answers. A cheap filter will have more problems than a good filter, all other parameters being equal.</p>

<p>Bottom line... do whatever makes you comfortable.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p> </p>

[ed_hazera1]

<p>Will someone who is anti u/v filter please show me an example of a degraded image ?</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Ed, many examples, here's one.

 

http://heeen.de/blog/2009/07/uv-filters-considered-harmful.html

[craigd]

<p>Pity the author of that example doesn't tell us exactly which UV filter he used. Hoya makes more than one type: there's a cheap one and a more expensive multi-coated one, at the very least.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the main con to using UV filters seems to be the risk of added glare. i dont stack filters when using CPs or ND grads like leigh says, but i keep UVs on to protect the front element. so far it's worked out.</p>