Is a UV Filter necessary?

[Mando327]

Hello everyone. I was talking to a professional photographer and told him that i wanted a polarizing filter and a UV filter for protection of the lens glass, to which he responded

No!!!!! There is no such thing as "protecting a lens!!!" I have never
ever ever scratched the front of my glass on any lens. I've broken
lenses,
dropped them, screwed them up in every conceivable way, but I have
never
scratched the lens. You have to TRY to do it, and even when showing
someone
how hard it is to do it (using an old broken lens that couldn't be
fixed),
I still couldn't do it. Most of all, why put a $15 piece of glass in
front of a lens that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars?

Is there any advice out there whether to really buy it or not? Is there really a difference between a lets say Tiffen or Canon (or Hoya) pol. filter?

[another view]

Well, I did it - but I still am not a "protective" filter convert. If you do use them, don't use them with a Polarizer, use only one because more extra glass surfaces that light has to pass thru can cause problems with sharpness (with cheap filters) and lens flare. If you use them, get a good one like a Hoya HMC, B+W or Heliopan.

I do use them in the rain or other conditions when the front element can easily get wet or dirty. I almost always use a lens hood which will not only reduce flare but provide some protection to the lens itself. It basically recesses the front element a little so it's less exposed.

I blew a lens recently because I threw it in my bag without a cap on it, and somehow it bumped into something or the metal buckle on my bag hit it. Fortunately it was a relatively inexpensive lens - the repair cost is about what it's worth used. But even after that I haven't changed my opinion. It'll work OK as a backup but I'll have to be careful about contrasty light because the small chip in the center will flare pretty easily.

[Trevor Ash]

To answer your original question of whether a UV filter is necessary or not the answer is no. Of course it's not NECESSARY but some people feel more comfortable leaving it on their lens all the time (comfortable is not equal to necessary in my opinion)

I don't use UV filters on my lenses unless I'm traveling through something like woods where I get paranoid of a branch hitting the lens or at the beach where I worry about sand blasting it.

I tend to agree with the pro you mentioned but it's nice protection when you're worried about something hitting your front element. For some, this is worth any potential image degradation. Sure, you drop your lens anywhere and you're screwed but I'm sure people could also argue that if it dropped on the front of the lens that the filter metal could have helped to reduce the damage right?

The other thing is that some people clean their lenses WAYYYYYY TOOOOO MUUUCCCHHH. You can get quite a bit of junk on the glass before it actually creates any noticable affect. Some people get one spec of dust and freak out. These are the same people that usually appreciate having a UV filter on the lens because then they spend every 5 minutes scrubbing their $15 UV filter with the brillo pad rather than their expensive lens (note sarcasm).

UV filters have other purposes though, such as cutting through UV/haze It's actually useful on a rare occasion for me (well, once for that).

Some people use UV filters as "lens caps" but I've never had a problem putting a small plastic lens cap off and on.

Here's my advice; if you decide to always keep a UV filter on your lens then at least learn to recognize the lighting situations that will cause problems due to the extra reflections....things like night shots with bright lights in them (street lamps for example) or any shot with a bright light source in the frame during daylight like the sun. You should really take off any unnecessary filters for these kinds of scenarios as it will tremendously improve the amount of lens flare in the photo. Also, don't put your polarizer on top of the UV filter. Just swap filters.......don't worry, the lens will be fine for that 10 seconds where the front element is exposed to "danger".

All of my UV filters are B+W multicoated filters so that when I do choose to have them on I can worry less about flare.

That's my take on it

[Stanley]

I have had the 77mm front element on a 80-200 Tokina ATX lens hit and scratched slightly by a small stone while covering horse sports and for a while after I used "protective" filters but I don't anymore.There is a slight risk of damage if you do action etc.However for general use I don't think they are neccessary. Better to buy a top notch poleriser. One trick I learned is if you cover dusty sports don't zoom the lens till the air clears as it acts like a pump and you will need the lens innards cleaned very quickly.
Fred.

[Lionheart]

Try going to the beach or some sandy dunes somewhere with the wind whipping sand around without a filter on the front of your lens. Just getting the fine dust off the front element can scratch the lens. Of course this only happened to me with my consumer lenses when I was still a year or less into photography, I'm sure the pro grade lenses I use now are very scratch resistant, so I should probably ditch the clear filters I have on them-NOT. Just my two cents but, I'd rather ruin a UV filter than a $1500 lens any day of eternity.

[Michael Fanelli]

UV filters have other purposes though, such as cutting through UV/haze It's actually useful on a rare occasion for me (well, once for that).

This is a common misconception. Haze is caused by physical particles suspended in the air. No filter in the world can see through or around these particles. The "haze" that descriptions refer to used to be caused by UV light "fogging" the film a bit. Luckily, modern films and digital sensors are not senstive to UV light. Those good ol' UV, Haze, and Skylights are now only protective in function.

FWIW, a polarizer can be useful to cut down on the glare that sometimes bounces off of atmospheric haze.

[Seb]

Hello everyone. I was talking to a professional photographer and told him that i wanted a polarizing filter and a UV filter for protection of the lens glass, to which he responded

No!!!!! There is no such thing as "protecting a lens!!!" I have never
ever ever scratched the front of my glass on any lens. I've broken
lenses,
dropped them, screwed them up in every conceivable way, but I have
never
scratched the lens. You have to TRY to do it, and even when showing
someone
how hard it is to do it (using an old broken lens that couldn't be
fixed),
I still couldn't do it. Most of all, why put a $15 piece of glass in
front of a lens that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars?

Is there any advice out there whether to really buy it or not? Is there really a difference between a lets say Tiffen or Canon (or Hoya) pol. filter?

Hey Mando,

I am one of those you actually feel much better with a protective filter on.

I have been using a cheap Tiffen filter on the cheap 28-80mm stock lense that came with my Nikon F65 back in my film days. I went digital 6 months ago and I have been using my Tamron 28/75mm XR di lense with no protection for almost all that time with no problem yet I didn't felt perfectly comfortable about it.

Few weeks ago, I have bought a Nikon neutral filter (easily 3 times more expensive than the Tiffen and not to be mistaken with an UV filter) for the Tamron and while I will admit that I haven't shot so much since then, the results doesn't seem compromised by the presence of the Nikon filter. There were quite a lot of air bubble in the glass of the Tiffen filter while there is almost none on the Nikon. Also, the Nikon is noticeably thiner and brighter.

While I do recognize that protective filters aren't an absolute necessity, I think that it is a good thing to own one and the quality of the filter does count.

regards

Seb

[Trevor Ash]

Thanks Michael, I wasn't aware of that and always assumed as I wrote above. I searched the internet for facts and found some articles that support what you say. Here's one I found: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour..._filters1.html

What you say and what this article says conflict a little bit (he says they're useful at high altitude you say modern film and CCD's aren't sensitive to it and I would therefore assume it doesn't matter at high altitude)

Here's another thread that supports what you say:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=009iwG

Once again, I appreciate the correction Michael.

[Trevor Ash]

Hmm, I found this article to be interesting:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/

[opus]

I'm really happy I read this thread. Prior to this I've been told over and over again that I "should" get a UV filter for every lens and just keep it there. I did for my first two lenses but never got around to screwing one into my newest lens. So I've been walking around feeling like I'm cheating destiny each time I don't get a scratch on my lens.

Now I can feel more comfortable with not having one on ... thanks ...

(I'll still use one when I'm at the beach or at a dusty sporting event, but those are planned occasions.)

[Seb]

Hello everyone. I was talking to a professional photographer and told him that i wanted a polarizing filter and a UV filter for protection of the lens glass, to which he responded

No!!!!! There is no such thing as "protecting a lens!!!" I have never
ever ever scratched the front of my glass on any lens. I've broken
lenses,
dropped them, screwed them up in every conceivable way, but I have
never
scratched the lens. You have to TRY to do it, and even when showing
someone
how hard it is to do it (using an old broken lens that couldn't be
fixed),
I still couldn't do it. Most of all, why put a $15 piece of glass in
front of a lens that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars?

Is there any advice out there whether to really buy it or not? Is there really a difference between a lets say Tiffen or Canon (or Hoya) pol. filter?

One more thing,

I have to say that I am pretty surprised by the comments that the pro photog expressed to you. Actually, I have been told the very contrary by a pro. The thing is that the coating on today modern lenses create relatively (note that I say relatively) soft surface which is prone to dents and scratches. Of course, usual cares and basic common sense give you more chances not to damage your lense but if an accident was to happen (they do happen sometimes...) you'd be happy to have a filter on.

That being said, others here made very good points about not using 2 (or more) filters at the same time and not over clean your lense.

Choosing an high quality filter is the only way to go if you decide to get one.

regards

Seb

[Michael Fanelli]

What you say and what this article says conflict a little bit (he says they're useful at high altitude you say modern film and CCD's aren't sensitive to it and I would therefore assume it doesn't matter at high altitude)

This is old advice. I remember having to use skylight filters in the Rockies for slide film way back in the good ol' days! I satisfied myself that UV is no longer a problem with film while underneath the ozone hole in Antarctica back in December of 2000. I took a few rolls of slide film just for testing (the rest was print film for the latitude). With the slide film, there was absolutely no difference with a skylight or UV filter on or off. If there is no effect with that massive amount of UV light, I feel safe anywhere else in the world!

[Trevor Ash]

Michael, in case no one else has said it your experience and wisdom is always appreciated here. Thanks for the continuous enlightenment. You've been teaching me a lot lately.

Best Regards

[92135011]

Things happen sometimes...
I cracked my skylight in 4-5 pieces when the lens was knocked upon something. Actually, it was the lens cap, which for some reason got pushed into the lens. Dont ask why, but it just happened.

[another view]

Dont ask why

In the immortal words of Nancy Kerrigan: Why, why, why? (OK, maybe a little poor taste! ;) )

Michael, I guess that's pretty much the ultimate test of UV! Must have been quite a trip.

[Mando327]

Thank you all for your input. It really helps. What i will do is wait till i can buy a top notch UV filter for protection, but in the meantime i will "risk". I don't think it's worth buying a cheapo right now. Thanks again for your input.
Mando-