Any event shooters who DONT use uv filters?

[rnelson]

I know this is going to sound pretty radical, but are there any event shooters who do not use uv filters for protection on any if not all of

their lenses? If so, why?

[henryp]

<p>When I was shooting film I had a UV filter on every lens all the time. Some of my assignments included sports like soccer, rugby, etc., where dirt and dust were unavoidable. I also covered enough college activities that ended in frat-house food fights to know a filter was not optional.<br>

For my med-format gear I never used a UV filter. I was shooting studio portraits, location portraits and weddings and felt UV filters simply were not necessary. YMMV</p>

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

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Every time I buy a lens from B&H (or anywhere else) I also buy a UV filter to fit it, and that filter only comes off to put on another filter. Like Henry, I've been at lots of situations with stuff that can damage my lens -- even weddings. So I never want the front element going naked. Yes, that extra layer of glass degrades the image quality by a measurable amount. But in my experience it does not degrade the image by a visible amount. And lens hoods might keep fingers off the lens but do nothing to protect against wet stuff spraying through the air.</p>

[DWScott]

<p>I used them religiously, until I tested the image quality of filter vs. no filter on a number of subjects, back to back. Yuck. It was immediately apparent (and no they weren't cheapy filters.) Took the filters off and threw them in a drawer. They might come back out if I was going to be shooting a food fight....</p>

<p>Best lens protection I use is a hood. A big hood will protect lenses from most bangs and wayward fingers (as well as improving contrast and reducing flare.)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you search the archives here, you will find plenty threads on the merits of using UV filters versus not using them, including heated debates. It isn't nearly as radical as you think to shoot without filters. I only have UV filters on lenses I use in environments where things easily can get very dirty; all the others I do not bother. For events, I'd find hoods more important as the risk there is more people/walls bumping into things (and a filter will do little to protect against that) rather than liquids/loads of dust.</p>

[Ken Katz]

For lenses that have a vulnerable front element even with a lens hood, I generally use a high quality UV or protective filter. For lenses that have good protection using a lens hood, I don't bother with a protective filter. If there is risk of blowing sand, water, or other potential hazards, I would definitely use a filter.

[Thomas J.]

<p>I shoot events and I don't use a UV filter nor plan on it. Like someone mentioned above, it definitely affects IQ. Just be aware of your surroundings and what's happening, keep the lens hood on even indoors, and get insurance on your gear.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>At social events, I've been sprayed with alcohol of various types, sodas of various flavors, chlorinated water, silly string, and even food. A hood does nothing to protect against that. And if the lens is sprayed enough that it's not worth continuing to use in that state, you can take off the filter, assuming there isn't going to be a lot more spray.</p>

<p>At not-as-social events, I have been sprayed with blood and sweat. Seems like a good idea to use a filter. And, not surprisingly, my photos get published despite using a filter, at least until there's enough stuff on it to require removing it.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Nothing radical about using them or not using them. Some use them and some don't.</p>

<p>I have a few but I almost never see any need for them so I don't bother. Also I don't have a problem cleaning my front element when the need arises. Even with UV filters you somehow get dust and whatnot under the filter so you have to take it off and clean under it from time to time.</p>

<p>I do find hoods on my lenses to be mandatory though. I keep the hoods on at all times, also in the bag. I don't use the front cap on my lenses, but use the back cap (when I have time).</p>

<p> </p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>uv filters are just an extra buck to be made at the camera store. No better protection than the lens shade. I have never been on an event where I felt i needed a uv filter. I have banged my camera lens around and the lens shade was a good thing. Stray light from videographers light and house lighting has been minimized by a lens shade.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>No better protection than the lens shade</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

When liquid is spraying everywhere, like in a mad champagne toast, it a lot better than a lens shade. </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Oh, goodie: We haven't had a religious debate on merits of UV filters for at least a couple of months. LOL.</p>

<p>I suspect we must all go to very different types of events. I completely side with Jeff and the (generally) pro-filter crowd. </p>

<p>Just wait till you experience the effects of having a drop of salt spray dry on your front lens element (...or exuberant firemen at one of their parties, or whatever...) </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>I think the thrust of the question might be more about why one would choose not to use a UV for protection or why one might remove the UV filter if it were the normal state to have one on: in that regard - all my lenses (except the EF15/2.8 and EF8-15/4) have a UV on them.</p>

<p><strong>> are there any event shooters who do not use uv filters for protection on any if not all of their lenses?</strong><br>

Yes, I take their UV Filters off sometimes.</p>

<p><strong>> If so, why?</strong><br>

The main reason for me to take off the UV is, when I am shooting in Available Light only and shooting into the light and the UV Filter is creating, or I think it might create a Ghost Image.</p>

<p>The secondary reason is if I think that UV filter would create or exacerbate Flare, again this is mainly when I am shooting into the light but not exclusively when I am shooting Available Light only.</p>

<p>In either of these two situations above, the issues of good imagery would have to outweigh the value of the UV Filter protecting lens's front element of the lens, being protected - so for example - if the ‘event’ were a bar-room brawl, I would not be that concerned about Ghost Images and I would keep the UV on the lens, but if the event were a Social Function with more a modicum of decorum, then off goes the protection, if necessary.</p>

<p>The tertiary reason I would remove a UV Filter is to replace it with another Filter - i.e. so as to NOT stack filters. Rarely at 'events' this situation would happen, but on the rare occasion I have used a CPL and more often, but still only sometimes, I have used an ND Filter.</p>

<p>Though not asked - I also use Lens Hoods (usually) all the time and I use them the correct way around even when I am inside, although I know it is deemed a cool practice by some to use the lens hood in the reversed position when shooting inside.</p>

<p>The main reason I would take off an hood is to do some Macro work which required a really close working distance and/or the hood was creating a shadow - that doesn't happen much at events, except sometimes it did happen at Weddings, for a macro of the rings as one example.</p>

<p>There was one really odd occasion when I was using a W/A Lens (I think the 16 to 35) and I added the pop Up Flash for a touch of Fill - (there are two topics for other threads of diametrically opposed opinions: why have a camera with a Pop up Flash and why ever use it) - and the Lens Hood created a Shadow, so the Lens Hood needed to be removed. Though technically that was not an 'event' but more a family and friends snapshot late in the evening after a family and friends 'event', but none the less it may be worth a mention as to why consideration of the lens hood being removed might be required.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[studio460]

<p>Only my two most expensive lenses get Nikon clear filters for protection: My AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G and AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G (only because they were like $2,000 each). Anything under $2,000 goes naked (I bought many of my lenses as refurbs, so my $1,300 AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR goes naked). My primary event lens, my refurbed AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR also goes naked.</p>

<p>I did scratch the coating of my AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D by dropping it onto a stick-shift knob in a car once, but it doesn't affect its imaging quality. My number-one reason for shooting without a filter? It's the same as William's: To avoid ghost reflections when light sources are included in the frame.</p>

[bryce_l.]

<p>A UV (ultra-violet) filter indicates to me that the colouring of the filter "may" change the rendering of an image.<br>

I have just one lens for my Nikon D750 an older 28-105 without a hood! So far in my return to photography have discovered extra lense sare needed, at least at present. <br>

Maybe I need to investigate the purchase of a lens hood and maybe some form of protective glass for the front. Which brings up a question, are absolutely clear glass filters (although constructed of clear glass it doesn't seem to me to be filtering anything) available? Not UV, simply a clear piece of glass mounted in or on a filter ring?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Which brings up a question, are absolutely clear glass filters (although constructed of clear glass it doesn't seem to me to be filtering anything) available?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Yes, that's what I use when I am in situation with liquids, which is most of the time. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756816-REG/B_W_66_1066109_67mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html">Here</a> is an example.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

Contrary to what I "used" to do where I didn't even use caps and everything was tossed around in my bags, now with my

newer gear I do use Hoya HMC SkyB or whatever on my day to day lenses. I don't use them on my 180, 300 or 400

Nikkors.

[bob_bill]

<p>I use nikon clear filter on all my pro glass. Last year, broke my first filter even with the hood on. Nasty fractures. It jammed the filter on the 24-70 but no damage to the threads. Filter about $60, front element repair at nikon I expect to be enough to pay for numerous filters. I have bumped the filters in studio numerous times with camera swinging around my neck as I bent over and who knows what those might have done to the front element. Like Jeff, I have been sprayed with ringside blood and sweat as well as various beverages, salt and fresh water. I see no deterioration in image with it in place. </p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>For events - yes, there is a benefit of filter on a lens. I got dust, beach sand, rain, snow, spit, sweat, puke, beer, cake, melted chocolate and my own snot (from sneezing) on front of my lens (not all at the same event). I wear a tie to most of my shoots - great to quickly wipe off the filter sitting in front of my lens and keep shooting.</p>

[rnelson]

<p>I was shooting a chair a while ago, using available window light (the look was right, and I didn't want to use a flash, opting for a slower shutter speed, etc. on a tripod). Took several shots, and upon LCD review noticed some ghosting. I couldn't figure out what was wrong, so I move the chair a bit, the camera slightly, and same thing. I was sort of new to shooting, and was puzzled by this, until I realized I had a UV filter on the lens (I was just starting out, and it was an inexpensive filter, btw). Took it off, got the shot- no problems. I decided to not use filters for any studio type shots, and haven't been for most events (concerts mostly).</p>

<p>FOLLOW UP: The Lens hood on my 24-120 f/4 is very shallow, offering IMO little protection compared to the hood on my 70-200 f/2.8. Would a substitution be acceptable, and if so, what would I look for without compromising the way the lens "sees" light? (Of course I could just by a good filter!)</p>

 

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>The Lens hood on my <strong>24-120 f/4 is very shallow</strong>, offering IMO little protection <strong>compared to the hood on my 70-200</strong> f/2.8. Would a substitution be acceptable, and if so, what would I look for without compromising the way the lens "sees" light?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mostly all Lens hoods for ZOOM lenses fit on the end of the lens. (And I assume this is so for the two Nikon Lenses that you mention)</p>

<p>The Lens Hood of a Zoom Lens has to accommodate, firstly the WIDEST Focal Length and secondly the Focal Length COMPASS (range) of the zoom. The 24 to 120 is firstly a very wide lens (FL = 24mm) a also has a large Compass ( 24 to 120 is <strong>'a five times zoom'</strong>).</p>

<p>On the other hand, the 70 to 200 is a telephoto lens at its widest (FL = 70mm) and also it has a much smaller Compass (slightly less than 'a three times zoom').</p>

<p>This is why you perceive that the Hood for the 70 to 200 is a more efficient Hood - and it is.</p>

<p>It will not be generally suitable to use another Lens Hood for your 24 to 120 other than the one designed to the specs by Nikon.</p>

<p>The compromise will be that you risk:<br /> > More Flare if the lens hood has less coverage<br /> > Optical Vignette if the lens hood has more coverage</p>

<p>Optical Vignette will present as a dark ring or curve at the corners of the image; probably perceptible in the viewfinder also.</p>

<p>However if you wanted to experiment you might find a more efficient Hood to use with that lens but you would have to restrict your shooting to exclude the wider focal lengths. For example, maybe you could find an hood to use for the focal lengths between 50mm and 120mm, but that seems to be counter to the idea of having the zoom lens in the first place.</p>

<p>Another method of preventing Flare when the Lens Hood is not coping with the situation, is to use your free hand (or piece of black card) held out in front of the camera lens to shade the incoming problem light rays.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I find that, in most circumstances, I am far more likely to damage the image by using a filter than to damage the lens by not. ~90% of the time the lens hood is quite adequate protection <em>for me.</em> However, when I am shooting on the beach, in a hurricane, or in a mosh pit (which Jeff Spirer frequents often - if you go by his excellent work - but I do not very often), I dig out the filter and pop it on. When I let my kids (5, 8, 12) use my gear, the lenses have filters.</p>

<p>The simple fact is that filters <em>can</em> be detrimental to the image quality. In a fast paced shooting environment, especially with non-ideal lighting which you don't control there is <em>no concrete way to completely and always prevent this degradation. </em>Essentially, the filter adds a layer of glass, which <em>can</em> cause additional reflections which <em>can</em> cause image degradation. A good quality MC filter will reduce this, but cannot eliminate this. IME, the shape and size of the front element of the lens will change this amount of reflected light dramatically - and the resulting degradation is largely <em>lens</em> dependent (a large nearly flat element will generally be worse than smaller, more curved ones).</p>

<p>As such, I only use filters when it is likely the lens will encounter spray, splatter, zombie gore (BTDT), or similar. Some of it is murder to get off!</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Bryce said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Which brings up a question, are absolutely clear glass filters (although constructed of clear glass it doesn't seem to me to be filtering anything) available? Not UV, simply a clear piece of glass mounted in or on a filter ring?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. I happen to own Nikon-branded clear filters (coated). Clear filters are available from other manufacturers as well (B+W, Hoya, Tiffen, etc.); however, I expect any detectable difference between a UV and a clear filter to be negligible. UV filters don't create a color cast (though skylight filters do), so you're probably fine with what you have.</p>

[Dave Gardner]

<p>I don't...why would i spend 2-3000 for a lens...and put a $20-30 dollar piece of in front of it.</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't...why would i spend 2-3000 for a lens...and put a $20-30 dollar piece of in front of it.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a>Good clear glass filters cost a lot more than $30. And the reason is because, as I and several other people said, shooting in certain conditions pretty much requires it. That isn't difficult to understand.</p>