Calling All Digital Photographers: What's Your Opinion of UV Lens Filters?

[Jason Dunn]

Here's a question for the photographers out there: have you ever done any serious A/B image quality tests with UV filters to see if there's a difference in your images? What's your opinion about whether or not they impact the sharpness/quality of a lens? When I was buying a <a target="_blank" href="http://www.vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=233607">D300 battery grip at Vistek</a> (more on that later) the salesperson said that as long as I used B+W or Nikon filters, I wouldn't see a drop in image quality, but if I used Hoya or another cheaper brand, I would. I happen to have Hoya UV filters for all my lenses (except the new one of course). Why UV filters? The appeal is protecting the expensive 24-70mm Nikkor lens I just bought from damage, but I don't want to sacrifice any image quality along the way or the money I spent on that lens is somewhat wasted.<br /><br />So what's the common wisdom, if any, on the impact of using a UV filter on your lens - are are there better brands than others?

[Filip Norrgard]

From what I've read and understood, there is no use for UV filters for digital cameras anymore. (Unless you remove the hot mirror filter in the digital camera, which only prevents infrared radiation from reaching the CCD chip.) Back in the ol' days of using film in the cameras, UV could have a negative effect on the film and resulting photo, but today the CCD chips aren't as reactive to UV radiation in any way. I saw an interesting article discussing this somewhere, but Google won't find it for me anymore.

But, as you said, UV filters are best used as lens scratch protectors nowadays and I really doubt they differ much between manufacturers (probably same subcontractor doing them anyways). I think that the salesperson is just trying to sell you a more expensive, same-quality filter. There is a minimal chance that some micrometers thicker filter might distort the sharpness in a lens, but that is only noticeable in super-extreme cases (thinking of photographing some stars maybe?).

[rtrueman]

The use of UV filters is a hotly debated topic. The above post is correct, with a digital camera a UV filter is not needed (for filtering UV) as the sensor's filter does the job. The question is whether you should use them for protection.

I used "protective" filters for years, purchasing everything from Promaster through B+W and Nikon. I stopped using them a fews years back as I switched camps to the "no protective filter" camp. Do I notice a difference... not really, but I also haven't done A/B tests for image quality. Where I have noticed a difference is in lens flare. Since you're putting another air/glass barrier in the equation, your chance of lens flare increases.

I do believe, however, that cheap filters can degrade your image quality. What I'm not sure of is what is a cheap filter. I use only B+W and Nikon screw-on filters now (for polarization only). It's not that I think the others aren't good, but I know these are some of the best.

Basically, I keep my lens hood on whenever the lens cap is off. I use Nikkor Pro series lenses and have never had an issue. I don't regret not having the protection, but sometimes, especially in crowds, get a little anxious about my lens.

Rob

blog.robtrueman.com
gallery.robtrueman.com

[Vincent Ferrari]

I borrowed a friend's 28-80 (I think that's what it was) and stuck it on my Rebel XT. By default, she always keeps a UV filter on her lenses because that's what she was told to do. (She was shooting an EOS-line film camera). I never got a good picture out of the lens, and thought that was odd because the lens she was using was really nice; and yet even with my much cheaper kit lens I got better color saturation and contrast.

Finally, just wanting to see what could be, I yanked the filter off and suddenly picture quality was improved. Colors were more punchy, contrast was better, and so on. It could've just been a cheap filter; I'm not ruling that out, but that's what I was able to see.

From that point on, I've had no interest in UV filters. I guess they work well outdoors, and they do keep the lens itself protected, but I can't really see a plus side to using them. The only filter I carry around is a polarizing filter for my 50mm F1.8 and even that rarely gets used.

[yslee]

Uncoated filters have lowered light transmission and can induce flare, lowering contrast, as well as ghosting, marvelous little reflections of light or whatever.

For Hoya, one should be looking at its SHMC and Pro1 lineup. The HMC isn't too bad either. The plain UV filters are to be avoided.

[bigsnit]

I've been using B&W UV filters on my Nikon digitals since the digitals came out - and here's why. Those "expensive" B&W filters have saved 2 really expensive lenses in the last few years.

A lot of modern digital camera bodies are quite light - and in many cases the lense out-weighs the camera body by quite a bit. That means that when it falls, say off a desk or chair, it drops lens first.

I was in Halifax the first time this happened to me. The lense took the impact when my D70 got bumped off a chair and dropped lens first. There was that sickening sound of glass cracking, and when I picked it up, the UV filter had broken, and the brass collar was totally dented. In fact, it by denting on impact, it saved the lens. I had to use pliers to get the collar off, but again, the lens was fine.

the 2nd time this happened to me was when we were loading gear into the back of the van and one camera bag wasn't close properly. A D200 went flying out of the case and hit the pavement. This time the body and lens both caught asphalt, and again the B&W filter broke. I saw the same kind of crushing in the collar but was relieved to see my 1500 dollar lens was unharmed.

Truth be told, I'd gone 15 years without anything like this happening, but twice in 1 year made me appreciate the fact that I've kept buying those filters.

Robert in North Vancouver

[Jason Dunn]

Thanks for making your first post such an interesting one!

I've been using B&W UV filters on my Nikon digitals since the digitals came out - and here's why. Those "expensive" B&W filters have saved 2 really expensive lenses in the last few years.

Indeed that's pretty much exactly the reason why I'm thinking about it - those "oops" moments when something goes horribly wrong...

[Kris Kumar]

I also feel that UV filters only offer lens protection from accidental bumps/falls. And I don't buy the protection from dust, I think the optical glass is pretty tough for dust. That said I don't use one and if I had to I would only buy the best.

[Jason Dunn]

I also feel that UV filters only offer lens protection from accidental bumps/falls.

...and branches, and rocks, and things flying through the air toward your lens. :D

[Kris Kumar]

...and branches, and rocks, and things flying through the air toward your lens. :D


:eek: Now I am paranoid...

[yslee]

Oh, and I also want to point out, usually the filter will more likely crack first in an accident. It's just a thin flat layer of glass, compared to a lens element, which is thicker and curved, like an arch. On most cheap lenses usually the mount connection is the first to go.

In reality, a light scratch or two never killed a lens. It only kills its resale value. :P I've a friend who has used a supertele with a 0.5cm chip gouged off its surface. It depends on where the damage occurs, and how it's shaped.

[Neil Enns]

Your homeowners insurance is for those "oops" moments. :)

Here's an article at Luminous Landscape that makes the case for removing UV filters entirely: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml. Primarily, he argues that the additional filter leads to cases of flare.

Neil

[Jason Dunn]

Your homeowners insurance is for those "oops" moments.

Yeah, I was actually thinking about just that - though the camera equipment is owned by Thoughts Media Inc., so I'll have to check what the deductible is on my business gear.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Yeah, I was actually thinking about just that - though the camera equipment is owned by Thoughts Media Inc., so I'll have to check what the deductible is on my business gear.

Does that mean employees of Thoughts Media can play with it? :-)

[Jason Dunn]

Does that mean employees of Thoughts Media can play with it? :-)

Haha...sure, it's available for short-term, same-city loan. :D

[Vincent Ferrari]

Haha...sure, it's available for short-term, same-city loan. :D

You Canadians and your technicalities :rolleyes: