UV Filters

[Photofarmer]

R6.

24/70L 100 to 400 rf and 35mm 1.8

I often shoot in dry dusty conditions such as sheep yards on hot days.

All have quality uv filters. Hoya.

A photographer who I respect immensely said throw them away you will get way way better photos with them off.

Idea was for lens protection nothing more nothing less.

Guess I will try with on and off to see if I can pick difference.

Thanks

 

[Nick L]

Hi, I used to use uv filters on all my lenses but have stopped using them for the last couple of years because of two reasons, firstly I had a major accident with an old 24-70L and my 5D3 the filter was broken but was also jammed on the end of the lens and due to the age of the lens and lack of parts could not be repaired and was replaced with a 24-70L II, so not a bad outcome. Secondly I use Kase magnetic filters and UV filters would not work well with the magnetic filter ring as the filters would be further forward affect the corners even more when using two filters at once. Also no matter how good the UV filter is the are flat not curved glass and will create additional flare when shooting into the sun. I do no use them anymore but always make sure I have a lenspen handy to clean any dust or rain drops.

 

[dougsmit]

I do not use filters but if I were ever to decide to use one, I can not think of a better place than a sheepyard where dust is the name of the game.

 

[MikeZ]

The use of UV or SkyLight filters to protect the front lens element has led to many long running conversations on many photo forums, but no real conclusions. An additional glass barrier adding "distortion" (possible) or a glass barrier adding protection (also possible). I've used them, with few exceptions, and gained the habit too many years ago (when lens coatings were not as durable) to remember. It made sense then and probably still does in dusty environments, but I wonder about less egregious conditions - shooting in a botanical garden or a family gathering for example. Fluoride coatings are supposed to protect the front element, and just about every lens has it today, so maybe that filter is not needed for anything but the nastiest places.

Has anyone done any testing on this topic? Admittedly I have not so I can't comment on image quality, but I'd like to know. Clearly, a cheap filter will more likely than not have an adverse affect, but would the same be true of a top quality filter (Canon, B&W, Zeiss, etc.)?

 

[dmiller68]

I have been one of those guys that have always had a UV filter on my lens. The argument that has me questioning it is that the glass on the filter is never going to match the glass. However, my testing has never lead me to believe that it affects it. I currently don’t have one one my new glass.

 

[NickAndersonPhoto]

I used to be a filter chap but, after learning what qualities good lenses have I decided that an additional layer was unnecessary. In practical terms, I still found some dust gathered behind the filter (even top quality ones) and then I dropped a long lens whilst changing it. The filter was no protection whatsoever! The filter frame transferred the shock into the lens zoom mechanism and the glass was so thin it did nothing to protect the front element. The result was probably just the same as dropping an unfiltered lens.

Over the many years I have worked with unfiltered lenses I have never observed damage to my front element through cleaning and, of course, never had to worry about a stuck filter thread!

 

[MikeZ]

Point well taken. Have you noticed any difference in photo quality with and with-out the UV filter? The old story was that for any outdoor/scenic photo, the UV filter would reduce atmospheric haze. I'm curious if the filter makes a difference in image quality and will perform as such.