Many photographers leave UV filters on their lenses more-or-less permanently. Many others do not. Who is right? Should you buy UV filters (or clear protective filters) for all your lenses?
This question is highly controversial amongst photographers and the forums of DPREVIEW have seen many long discussions/arguments on the subject. The only thing we can say for sure is that there is no definitive right answer. In this article, I will attempt to explain my own point of view and discuss the main arguments for and against using UV filters. Most of these arguments apply equally to clear protective filters.
I assume that the UV filter being used is of similar optical quality to the lens elements themselves. This is generally true for the best multi-coated filters from good manufacturers, but may not be true for the cheaper filters.
The filter blocks UV light and removes the blue cast from images taken in very bright sunny conditions
This argument is almost completely spurious for modern digital cameras. With old film cameras it was often necessary to use a UV filter because film is extremely sensitive to UV light. However, digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV, so the problem doesn't arise to anything like the same extent.
Having said that, I have seen some evidence that for certain lenses a UV filter can reduce the purple fringing caused by longitudinal chromatic aberration. The purple fringing of longitudinal chromatic aberration only occurs in particular circumstances and is not to be confused with the much more common coloured fringing caused by lateral chromatic aberration (most noticeable in the corners of the frame).
My personal view is that these effects are almost always insignificant and do not provide a good enough reason for using UV filters on a regular basis with digital cameras.
The filter provides protection for the lens
There are two types of protection to consider.
Firstly, protection against damage caused by rough handling or dropping the lens/camera -
I doubt if anyone has done a proper scientific study of this, but personal experience suggests that a mishap that damages the filter will probably also damage the lens. I have seen no good evidence that the presence of a filter significantly reduces the chances of seriously damaging the lens.
Secondly, protection against dust, dirt, smears and scratches on the front element of the lens - The presence of a filter on the lens certainly protects the front element, as the dust, dirt, smears and scratches get on the filter instead. Which is preferable?
The filter is flat and easily removed, which makes it much easier to clean. Also, if it does get scratched, or gets so dirty that it is too difficult to clean thoroughly, then it typically costs much less to replace than the lens.
On the other hand, many photographers argue that lenses do not need cleaning very often and the chances of scratching the lens are very low, so it is better to save your money and go without the filter.
The filter causes a loss of image quality
This is true in theory (except possibly in those rare cases of lenses that have been specially designed for use with a filter). However, the loss of image quality is likely to be very small in practice and so the real question becomes: Is the loss of image quality significant to me?
In trying to answer this, there are several different aspects of image quality that need to be considered:
Flare and ghost images
I use the term flare to mean an overall veiling of the image (or parts of the image) due to stray light, while ghost images are secondary images of very bright light sources, usually badly out of focus and sometimes showing extreme coma, astigmatism and chromatic aberration as well.
Both flare and ghost images are caused by unwanted reflections or scattering from the various exposed surfaces within the lens and camera body. The glass surfaces of all the lens elements will contribute, as will the glass surfaces of the filter. Typical modern lenses contain up to 15 or more elements, and the addition of one more element (the filter) is not likely to make much difference in most practical circumstances.
I have never seen any convincing evidence that the presence of a good quality filter increases flare to any noticeable extent with ordinary camera lenses.
However, there is a particular circumstance in which the presence of a filter may cause noticeable ghost images. With some lenses, when used at full aperture (or nearly so), light reflected from the sensor back through the lens may be reflected from the rear surface of the filter back into the camera producing a ghost image on the opposite side of the optical axis. Ghost images of very bright lights are often visible in night shots taken with a very fast lens at full aperture if a filter (any filter, the type is irrelevant) is being used.
Although much fainter than the primary images, they can be very noticeable as they will be in focus if the lens is focussed at infinity and the lights causing them are in focus. These ghost images will disappear if the filter is removed, or if the aperture is reduced sufficiently (i.e. the F-number is increased).
Both the above images are overexposed and this makes the ghost images more noticeable. Even so, it is only the brightest lights that produce ghost images that are bright enough to be seen (and then only when they occur against a relatively dark background). In daytime images, it is extremely rare for ghost images to be noticeable unless the sun is visible in the frame (and the air is clear so the sun shines brightly).
Notice that there is considerable flare near the floodlights and this is the same in the two images. The leftmost floodlight produces particularly strong flare which can be seen both as a fuzziness and spreading of the floodlight itself and also as a purplish haze which seems to surround the crane on the extreme left.
Loss of light
I have never seen any convincing evidence that a good quality UV filter causes noticeable loss of light through the lens. Indeed, that would not be expected as the filter is just one additional glass element and most modern lenses already have at least 7 elements and often twice that number or even more.
Loss of resolution
Again, I have never seen any evidence that this is significant for a good quality filter on normal camera lenses. Good quality filters should have optically flat surfaces that do not disturb the direction of the light rays passing through the filter. If there is any slight variation from optical flatness (as may occur with a very cheap filter), the effect will be most noticeable with extreme telephoto lenses because of their magnifying effect.
My evaluation of the evidence is that there is no really compelling evidence either to use a filter or not, except in a very few situations when it is better not to use a filter to avoid in-focus ghost images.
Personally, I do have UV filters on all my lenses and only remove them in those very rare situations for which I know they may cause ghost images. My main reason for using filters is that I like to keep my lenses very clean and I feel more confident in cleaning the filter than in cleaning the surface of the lens.
However, I think those photographers who choose not to use filters have a sound case as well!
The effect of a dirty lens (or filter)
In comparing images taken with and without a filter, one thing I have noticed in doing the tests is that even a slightly dusty lens occasionally has a noticeably deleterious effect on the image. This only occurs in extreme lighting conditions such as when the sun is shining brightly and is within the image frame, or very close to it. Under such circumstances, light scattered by dust particles on the front element of the lens or on the filter can significantly increase the stray light falling on the image.
It's generally not worth worrying about a little dust on the lens (or filter). In normal circumstances dust on the front element has no visible effect at all. But, if you are shooting into a bright sun or other very bright lights, then it is a good idea to clean your lens (and filter) first.
|And I'm feeling all fingers and thumbs by Dutch Newchurch|
from Your City - Coffee Break
|Stitch that - macro by Beatsy|
from Household objects- Macro only
|Fiddling Around by garyjb|
from Concert musician playing
|wet red by George Veltchev|
Lightroom has built a brand new Lightroom CC from the ground up to be faster, easier to use, and cloud-based. The application formerly known as Lightroom CC will continue to exist, and will go by "Lightroom Classic CC."
Google's new Pixel 2 phone provides a background-blurring portrait mode with a single-lens camera setup using neural networking and dual-pixels.
With the arrival of the PowerShot G1 X III, there are now seven Canon cameras built around the 24MP Dual Pixel sensor and Digic 7 processor. We take a look at the differences and what might prompt you to choose one over the others.
Meet the HP ZBook x2. The so-called 'world's most powerful and first detachable PC workstation,' it was built with creative professionals in mind, and is being debuted at Adobe MAX.
PDN sat down with Ahmed Fakhr, director of photography at RollingStone.com, to talk about how the famed publication is adapting to the changing photo and video needs of the modern era and how he 'evaluates the skills of potential contributors.'
Kudos to Canon. Earlier today, the camera giant announced that it had produced its 90 millionth EOS camera and 130 millionth EF-series lens.
The ROV Slider is a portable, motorized slider that promises to bring 'beautiful cinematic video and time-lapse' shooting to anybody with a smartphone, GoPro or DSLR that weighs less than 5lbs.
The new Surface Book 2 laptops come with Intel's 8th generation quad-core processors and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 and 1060 GPUs. In other words: they pack a serious punch.
Leica is resurrecting a portrait lens from the 1930s: the Thambar-M 1:2.2/90. This lens features just 4 lens elements, and was famous for its spherical aberration that creates extremely soft images.
Google's Visual Core is an Image Signal Processor designed to power and accelerate HDR+ processing and other imaging tasks in the new Pixel 2 devices (and beyond).
The Google Pixel's camera is among the best we've reviewed, and its successor has already been hailed as class-leading. With expectations set high, the Pixel 2 has nonetheless left a very good first impression on us as we shot some initial sample images.
Leica is one of the oldest names in photography, and has long been one of the most prestigious. Recently, we had the opportunity to visit Wetzlar, to see for ourselves how Leica's lenses are put together.
Canon went and put an APS-C sensor in a G series compact. The result is a mighty tempting camera for travel.
Google Photos is adding a few pet-friendly features that will make it easier to find photos of your favorite pooch. Now, you can organize your pet photos by facial recognition, and you can even search your library by breed.
Colorful tripod maker MeFOTO has launched a new tripod... and a whole new brand name. Meet the GlobeTrotter travel video tripod, the first product to be released under the MeVIDEO brand.
If you own a Moto Z, you'll soon be able to attach a Polaroid instant printer to it. Check out the unreleased Moto Mod, which was leaked earlier today.
DJI has developed a technology called AeroScope that allows law enforcement to identify and track airborne drones that are breaking UAV regulations, while simultaneously addressing privacy concerns.
The Nikon D850 is a 45.7MP full-frame DSLR with an autofocus system lifted wholesale from the pro-sports focused D5. 4K capture, continuous shooting at 7 or 9 frames per second make it sound like the ultimate all rounder. Is it all that these specs suggest?
The Mate 10's Kirin 970 chipset with integrated AI processing allows for object recognition, motion detection and automatic scene selection in the camera app.
DxO has announced version 3.0 of the iOS app for its 'One' connected camera. It adds support for multi-camera Facebook Live broadcasting and both time-lapse still and video capture. Android users will be pleased to hear that a One for their platform is on the way, as well. Several new accessories are available, including a battery pack.
Canon has introduced the PowerShot G1 X Mark III, which borrows the 24MP APS-C sensor and Dual Pixel AF system from the company's recent mirrorless and DSLR cameras, adds a 24-72mm equiv., F2.8-5.6 lens and puts them into a lightweight body – but it'll cost you quite a bit.
It's not often that we see a genuinely interesting compact camera, and the Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III is one such beast. We've pulled out the top features of the camera and tell you why they matter – and put the Mark III up against the competition.
Apple's HDR effect in the iPhone 8 Plus is on by default and more aggressive than in previous generations. It's also good enough to convince DPR contributor Jeff Carlson to leave it on all the time.
Canon's 28mm F2.8 IS USM may be small in size, but it's big on fun. We wrote about our experience using it as our only lens in Big Sur, California, but in case you missed out on our full gallery, take a look to see what this little lens can do.
Travel photographer Elia Locardi tells the story behind this gorgeous (and rare) panorama of the Dubai cityscape draped in fog.
Bison, drift cars, horseback riders, antelope – from the beach to the race track, the Sony 100-400mm G Master is one versatile piece of kit.
"Wildlife photography in Yellowstone National Park is an incredible opportunity, yet some bad photographers are giving all photographers a bad name by not following the rules."
Casio's bionic-looking new action camera, the GZE-1, is built with extreme sports in mind. The little camera is drop-proof, freeze-proof, dust-proof, and waterproof to 50 meters.
Yashica recently released the digiFilm Y35: a camera that tries to simulate the "experience" of shooting film... and it's just the worst.
Western Digital has revealed some interesting new technology that, it claims, will allow them to develop 40TB hard drives by the year 2025.