Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Your thoughts on UV/Protective filters

Kevriano
Posted 24/11/2017 - 21:13 Link
Evening. Having been a photographer for a very long time, I have always fitted UV filters to my lenses, as it was always considered somewhat necessary on film, and it also helped protect the front element. However, following a discussion with another photographer, it seems that UV filters are not required at all for digital, and so, my question is...

Do you still, either out of habit or otherwise, fit a protective filter or UV filter to your lenses, or are you happy to rely on the lens hood as enough of protection for the front element?
Also, if using a clear filter, is there any particular brand you are happy with?

Cheers
K3, K3 II, 100MM 2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20 3.5, Sigma 17-50 2.8, Nikon D7500, Tamron 150 600 G2
Edited by Kevriano: 24/11/2017 - 21:14
Nigelk
Posted 24/11/2017 - 21:27 Link
I never use them, always use hoods, never had a problem with causing damage to the end element or the coatings.
A friend lent me their 16-85mm to try, after taking quite a few shots I realized it had a UV filter on the front, I took it off. In my opinion it was better without, there was a small difference and I don't think It was a cheap filter.
Why not try it, take some with and without the filter and see what you think.
RobL
Posted 24/11/2017 - 22:17 Link
I tend to keep a UV filter on, Marumi or Hoya Pro, and I have noticed on one a couple of very tiny chips probably from windblown sand; also they get coated with a fine deposit of salty spray. I am more comfortable wiping the filter in the field because no matter how careful there is the risk of scratching which on a lens would affect the coating. I assumed that UV would help clarity in bright conditions but apparently sensors are receptive to the UV part of the spectrum whereas film isn’t. A protection filter would be more sensible as the good ones are made from a much harder material. And if conditions are right then the filter can always be taken off for the shot.
JAK
Posted 24/11/2017 - 22:31 Link
RobL wrote:
... but apparently sensors are receptive to the UV part of the spectrum whereas film isn’t.

It's the other way round!
The new kids on the block are the clear lens protection filters. UV can be seen at high altitudes so a UV filter should help cut through it and reduce the blueness.
Filters aren't generally necessary with digital though the effect of a polarizer can't be simulated in camera should one wish to reduce reflections. The effect of ND grads can be reproduced from raw files. Do I use filters? Sometimes!
John K
stub
Posted 24/11/2017 - 22:32 Link
I am also firmly in the hood camp and see no need for a UV filter.. Though I wouldnt decry those that use them..
K-1Gripped K-1 ungripped K-5ii K7 Various lenses

Stuart..
petrochemist
Posted 24/11/2017 - 22:45 Link
JAK wrote:
RobL wrote:
... but apparently sensors are receptive to the UV part of the spectrum whereas film isn’t.

It's the other way round!
The new kids on the block are the clear lens protection filters. UV can be seen at high altitudes so a UV filter should help cut through it and reduce the blueness.
Filters aren't generally necessary with digital though the effect of a polarizer can't be simulated in camera should one wish to reduce reflections. The effect of ND grads can be reproduced from raw files. Do I use filters? Sometimes!

Film is certainly comparatively more sensitive to UV, but silicon sensors are sensitve to some UV & IR. Because of this camera makers fir a hot mirror in front of the sensor (sometimes removed by photographers who want to photograph IR). With standard digital cameras the sensor/hot mirror combination is pretty insensitive to UV. Even with the hot mirror removed it's difficult to capture images in UV it needs special lenses (modern lenses typically stop transmitting slightly above 400nm) as well as complicated filters to pass UV & block visible & NIR. If you use a filter designed for photographing UV with a film camera (such as 'woods glass' or Schott U330) the camera image will be comprised mainly of IR.
In extremely dusty environments etc a UV filter has a benefit, but most of the time it's a waste of space.
Mike
.
Pentax:K5ii, K7, K100D, DA18-55, DA10-17, DA55-300, DA50-200, F100-300, F50, DA35 AL, 4* M50, 2* M135, Helicoid extension, Tak 300 f4 (& 6 film bodies)
3rd Party: Bigmos (Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM),2* 28mm, 100mm macro, 28-200 zoom, 35-80 zoom, 80-200 zoom, 80-210 zoom, 300mm M42, 600 mirror, 1000-4000 scope, 50mm M42, enlarger lenses, Sony & micro 4/3 cameras with various PK mounts, Zenit E...
Far to many tele-converters, adapters, project parts & extension tubes etc.

.[size=11:].FlickrWPFPanoramio
johnha
Posted 24/11/2017 - 23:16 Link
I'm an old school film shooter mainly, I always* use a good quality filter of sorts (either UV or Skylight). The only exceptions are medium format lenses that I've bought used that would require huge (80+mm) filters** - these can be more expensive than the lenses! It's not about IQ but protecting the front element, I'll shoot in any conditions and having a filter gives me more confidence - cleaning a filter is easier than the front element - and much less risky. Whenever I've not used a filter, some calamity has occurred making me wish I'd use one.

By keeping a filter on a lens, you only need to clean the filter, thus you won't scratch the front element by attempting to clean it. The vast majority of front element damage is caused by incorrect/over zealous cleaning.

* Even my FA 43Ltd wears a filter full time - this is one of the best FA lenses Pentax make, any IQ lost is insignificant compared to most peoples technique.

** My P67 lenses require huge filters - good ones are really expensive, however there's so much surface area that it takes a big scratch to make a significant difference to the results (unless it's at just the wrong angle).

John.
johnriley
Posted 25/11/2017 - 01:16 Link
Your lenses are carefully designed and putting another piece of glass in front of them can only degrade the image, however slightly.

The hood does offer protection and I'd not use any filters unless there is a specific reason. Protection from salt spray could be one, or the use of a polariser as that can't be duplicated in software.
Best regards, John
Jonathan-Mac
Posted 25/11/2017 - 07:45 Link
A really good quality filter will not degrade the image quality, however most filters, especially UV ones, are not very good quality. I've read about people dropping lenses with filters on them and shattering the filter glass which then scratches the lens glass, thereby achieving the opposite of what they intended. I've also bought used lenses with filters on them where the filter has clearly taken a heavy knock and, once removed, have seen that the filter ring of the lens was perfect, presumably protected by the filter. So it could go either way and you could achieve the protection by removing the glass from a filter and just screwing the empty ring onto your lens to take the hit from any fall without risk of scratching the front element or degrading image quality.

I would thoroughly recommend a hood for protection instead. Not only are they very cheap and made of plastic or rubber, which will better absorb any shock, but they should improve image quality by increasing contrast and preventing flare.

As John states, filters are best used for their filtering properties or to protect from risk of spray/mud, but not from falls or general dust etc.
Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X and Panasonic L digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
Kevriano
Posted 26/11/2017 - 09:13 Link
Thanks for all of your replies. I'm going to experiment with taking filters off, and will not initially buy one for the new lens I have coming.
K3, K3 II, 100MM 2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20 3.5, Sigma 17-50 2.8, Nikon D7500, Tamron 150 600 G2

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.