UV filter for safety when my standard polarizing is off ?

[st.schwarzer]

<p>Hi there,</p>

<p>I know, this is surely not everybody's opinion, but I usually leave my polarizing filter on my lenses all the time. Now, more recently I got involved into shooting school indoor events. Due to the low-light circumstances, I evidently need to take off the filter. Now, I wonder, shut I put on a UV filter instead? I hardly use lens hoods - not enough space in my bag for them is one reason. (Bad) Habit surely another.</p>

<p>Would you recommend that additional $/€ investment? </p>

<p>Thanks for your views!</p>

[phule]

<p>[[not enough space in my bag for them]]</p>

<p>Your lens hoods don't reverse?</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Like Rob says. Reverse the hoods for carrying in the bag. Use them on the lens, to (sometimes, <em>greatly</em>) reduce lens flare, and to protect the lens. The CP filter really isn't something you want on the camera unless you have a very specific reason to use it. Otherwise, it's multuple layers of glass in front of your lens, it slows down the lens (including hobbling auto-focus in some situations), and so on.<br /><br />On lenses I use in higher-risk environments, I use a high quality multi-coated UV filter (usually from B+W). When I'm comfortable doing to, there's nothing between the front element of the lens and the subject. I certainly wouldn't leave the CP filter in place.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I hardly use lens hoods - not enough space in my bag for them is one reason. (Bad) Habit surely another.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is what I would fix first. As Rob points out, you can reverse your lens hoods when you store them in your camera bag. If you don't want to do that, get a bigger camera bag.</p>

<p>Do you have one polarizer on each lens? I am not sure how many lenses you have, but that sounds like a lot of polarizers. Each polarizer has two pieces of glass, so it is really like two filters in one, and it blocks a lot of light. If you don't even have problems with that, there shouldn't be any problem replacing that with simple clear filters to protect your lenses. Whether that is necessary or not is up to you to decide. I use protective filters most of the time, especially when there are children around.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>My preference is to have quality UV filters on all my lens, all the time. Emphasis on "my".</p>

<p>I would recommend it if you do not want to see finger prints on your lens, because it will happen, sooner or later. If you're a bit more relaxed, maybe you can live without them. There likely is slight degradation of image and introduction of more reflections (particularly in night shots), with filters.</p>

<p>Very soon there will be many pro and negative opinions posted here, just keep in mind: it's up to you, depends on your priorities.</p>

<p>BTW, using a polarizer as an always-on protection does not seem a good idea to me: you're constantly reducing light coming in, it's really not needed in a lot of shots, and just a hassle (if you're bothering) to rotate.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Get a bigger bag.</p>

[richardsnow]

<blockquote>

<p>I hardly use lens hoods - not enough space in my bag for them is one reason. (Bad) Habit surely another</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Bad habit is correct. Every lens I have came with a hood. If Nikon supplies every lens with a hood, it's likely they want you to use them.</p>

<p>Two reasons to use a hood, (both stated earlier), are reduced flare in some circumstances and protection of not only the front element, but of the entire front of the lens, filter threads included.</p>

<p>I only use a UV/Protection filter when shooting in high salt/sand/wind areas (read beach). My completely unscientific opinion is that a $100 piece of glass placed in front of a $1000 (or more) piece of glass will do nothing other than to degrade the image quality produced by the lens.<br>

Just MHO.<br>

RS</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>A polarizer ALL the time seems overkill to me.</p>

<p>I leave a UV filter on all the time, but I do take it off for really critical still photos if I think that there might be ANY flare.</p>

[walterh]

<p>You could use neutral gray filters on your lenses instead :-)</p>

<p>Come on do you really want an opinion? Take off all pol filters and use the lens hoods.<br>

I agree that there are occasions where a pol filter can improve a shot but to keep pol filters on all lenses almost all the time is a bit - let me say "unusual".<br>

Sell some of your pol filters on ebay and for the money get a used larger bag that will accomodate the lenses with hoods parked in reverse.<br>

Using lens hoods most of the time is far more sensible than using pol filters most of the time. A hood improves IQ of your lenses in many circumstances not only in harsh sun light. Lens hoods can protect your lenses and you can read about pro and con in hundreds of threads so there is no reason to repeat this here. But if you want to use a protective filter use a lens hood in addition because you got one more reason to use a lens hood.</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>In my own experience a UV filter is just as apt to damage a lens even more if it shatters than not using one at all. I very rarely use one and my lenses are perfect. I do use a lens hood for pretty much every shot. And lens cap. Lens caps are a LOT tougher than a filter. As for a polarizer, I use one a lot, but only when the shot needs one.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[photo5]

<p>In my own experience a UV filter is able to protect the front element of a lens rather than not using one at all. I always use one and the front elements of my lenses are perfect and I never have to clean them. I also use a lens hood for pretty much every shot. And a lens cap. Lens caps are a lot tougher than a filter BUT only provide protection when they are on the lens! As for a polarizer, I rarely use one.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Well, I shoot rally racing on occasion, and let me tell you, you can get rocks thrown at you pretty easily. I don't use a UV filter, and all my lenses liook pretty much brand new. Add to that shooting a lot of ski photography, and you can guess I don't baby equipment. Half the time it is just thrown into a regular backpack. Everything works. Good gear is built to last, trust in it.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>I keep the lens hoods on at all times and I keep a Nikon clear protection filter on at all times. The clear filters at almost $100 each at the time were hard to swallow, but my front lens elements have not been exposed to the environment since about 1 minute after opening the box.</p>

 

[mightypir]

<p>another vote for the Nikon Clear filters. The are expensive but are really good and will not make any difference to the IQ. And they are appropriate for your nice expensive lens for which they provide protection. I bite the bullet and got one for each of my lenses and have not regretted it at all. I also always use the supplied hoods.<br>

BTW, if you are going to the beach or other adverse environment, use a cheaper UV/Skylight filter (Tiffen etc) which you would not have a problem wiping with a tee shirt etc.</p>

 

[DickArnold]

This has been covered many times on PN. Please research it. My last wedding. I was carrying three bodies and lenses. I dropped my 70-200 2.8 L lens on a concrete sidewalk. It landed on the hood (even though I was using three bodies and lenses I was using hoods). It bounced at least a foot in the air. The 70-200 weighs three pounds. I thought I had real damage but continued with the wedding. Long story short. The hood saved the lens. I am still using it eight years later. No filter would have saved that lens at the angle it hit. There was absolutely no damage. No damage to the hood either. Learn from those who have gone before you. A hood is far better protection than the filter IMO.

[DickArnold]

I sometimes UV filters when shooting swimming on the deck. Otherwise I rarely use them.

[st.schwarzer]

<p>Thanks for the responses. Yes, I know, it seems everybody is using hoods. Hmmm, have to change my habits, it seems. And my bag, in which, really , the hoods, even the other way around, don't fit. And it's already a large one. Gonna check some other bags out next time I am in town. And then thinking nevertheless about the Nikon clear filters. Thanks for the hints!</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>I like having a UV filter if for no other reason than ease of cleaning. If it gets dirty or wet, I'd rather wipe it down than have to wipe the front element of my lens. Having some small foreign object in my lens cloth is a real possibility and I'd hate to scratch my lens during cleaning. I've done some pixel peep tests with and without it and can't tell any difference. If the situation warrants I can just remove it before taking a shot. Hoods can't hurt your picture, and will definitely help if shooting into a light source. </p>

[peter_eisenburger]

<p>Stefan , not "everybody is using hoods" or filters. Zach doesn't, I don't. I only used an UV filter in the old days until I learned that high-quality lenses don't need extra UV protection. But it depends. If you did a lot of shooting on the beach for instance, you would surely want to use some kind of filter.<br>

Still, I will give the Nikon neutral filter a closer look. I didn't know sth. like this exists.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I only used an UV filter in the old days until I learned that high-quality lenses don't need extra UV protection.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder why? I hope people realize that the main purpose for protection filters is to keep dirt, blowing sand, water spray, mist, and occasionally little fingers from children as well as my fat fingers from touching the front element. Those problems can happen to high and low-quality lenses alike.</p>

<p>I have been using SLRs since 1972 and routinely use UV or clear filters. Twice in 38 years filters have saved my lenses from impact type damages. Once I dropped a lens on a concrete sidewalk from waist level very similar to Dick Arnold's description, and the Hoya UV filter took all the damages. I had to get the damaged filter removed by a repairperson, but there wasn't even a scratch on the lens barrel and glass.</p>

<p>If a filter happens to save your lens from impact damage, it is merely a happy by-product.</p>

<p>Lens hoods have saved my lenses a few times and so have lens caps. I use protective filters, lens hoods and lens caps routinely, all three. The primary limitation for lens caps is that you have to take them off to (get ready to) take pictures.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Back when I was researching the purchase of my D300 and lens I also researched filters. IIRC, film was somewhat sensitive to UV so a UV filter made sense for protection also. Again, IIRC, digital sensors are not sensitive to UV and a clear protection 'filter' made sense.</p>

<p>For me, the clear 'filter' filters out scratches, dust, and fingerprints because I clean my lenses more often than if I was cleaning the outer lens element directly.</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p>Well keeping a CP on all the time is a bit different I suppose. It is hard to rotate the CP with a lens hood on but you can do it if you want to. You just have to reach in there with your finger. I like my CP but find that they are not the thing to have on the lens most of the time. As far as the UV for protection that comes up once in a while. There are two camps on that. Some folks really value the UV filter and the others think it's a waste of money. It's really up to you. Real good quality UV filters are expensive to buy. I am sure your gear would be better protected but your wallet will be badly damaged.</p>