Should I get UV filters for my new Pro lenses ... ?

[slncezgsi]

I am about to take deliver of E-M5II, 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8. In the past I used to get high quality multicoated UV filters to protect the lenses. Now I am wondering whether I should do the same. My main concern is the protection of the front lens surface rather than filtering the UV light away. My choice util today always was Hoya HMC UV(0) as in one comparative these those came out the best (in regard to coating performance).

Just curious about your opinion and experience.

P.S. I do realise that additional surfaces in the optical path may (and will, question is only by how much) increase internal reflections.

 

[Bobby J]

I always, always use both. A hood is not much protection from a fluid or projectile. The main purpose for the hood is to help reduce flare inducing side light. I never use a lens without both the hood and a UV filter in place. I have never had an IQ problem because of a filter. Of course I always use very good filters.

 

[drj3]

I use B+W 007 Clear MRC filters when I am using my camera in the rain/mist, in windy dusty conditions, or on the beach. I would rather wipe off a filter to be able continue using the camera, rather than wiping an expensive lens and possibly scratching it. I take it off (when I remember) under other conditions, but have never been able to see any difference between photos with and without the filter. I do always use lens hoods, which reduces the probably of unwanted reflections.

 

[rodriguezPhoto]

"As with everything, the right tool at the right time."

That is it exactly!

 

[Martin Ocando]

After using filters on every lens, back in my first film days (late 70s), I went to no filter, due to the possibility of image quality degradation. It made some sense, since I didn't have enough money to afford good quality filters.

I saw this video from David Hobby the other day: here and it got me thinking about the whole UV filter idea.

Next step, I got B+W F-PRO filters for all my lenses, and did some sharpness tests. Results? Not a single sign of image degradation. There might be some issues with flare, but since I also use hoods on all my lenses, there is less to worry.

There are some reports of ghosting on night photography with bright lamps, and if I see them, I'll simply remove the filter. But for the rest, I just use them.

And I also hate lens caps. So, when I'm shooting, I remove them all, and put it on my bag. Back home, I clean and recap them.

 

[WNeuetc]

Gosh this is fun. I was hoping it would come up again.

First, let me point out a *lot* of folks feel/seem to get fantastically awesome photos from $300 lenses. Hell, a lot get perfectly awesome photos from smartphones (and I'm including a bunch of pros, who at least some of the time shoot with their phones). Even if you look at the lab results for filters (which is sketchy, at best) you will see that the differences, under typical shooting conditions (and frequently under marginal/odd condition) are essentially undetectable compared to the lenses optical performance.

Don't worry about what a filter (at least a decent/good filter) will do to your photos. However, unless you've got a bunch of spare $$ rolling around, you might want to worry about what a dirty lens cloth, a bit of sand, or that odd bump into something along the way might do to your $1,500 lens. Me, I'm a devout hood and filter guy (and based on the odd filter along the way I've scratched, well, I'm just so glad it was only a $200 B+W!)

Seriously, it's all about opportunity, eye, basic camera skills (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) lens, putting in the time (aka work) and luck (and I'm saying in that order).

I know this is a gear wankers site (and, God knows, I'm among the worst - Jeez, I'd f'inng buy B+W if they could give me eyes...). Just go out and enjoy!

 

[paris1968]

I am about to take deliver of E-M5II, 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8. In the past I used to get high quality multicoated UV filters to protect the lenses. Now I am wondering whether I should do the same. My main concern is the protection of the front lens surface rather than filtering the UV light away. My choice util today always was Hoya HMC UV(0) as in one comparative these those came out the best (in regard to coating performance).

Just curious about your opinion and experience.

P.S. I do realise that additional surfaces in the optical path may (and will, question is only by how much) increase internal reflections.

--
*_
Matus

It has been my habit for the last forty years to put a filter on every lens I buy, compulsively and without exception. The point is to protect the lens and its coatings from anything and whatever. If you have any concern for the quality of the filter, simply take it off before you shoot. Just be careful rethreading it when you put it back on. When I buy a lens these days, I buy a Hoya, BW, Tiffen, or Agfa filter for $10 or less from Amazon. Usually, you can find an Agfa kit with a polarizing filter and a UV filter for less than $15.

 

[John King]

Gidday Matus

Each to their own, but I have never damaged the front element of any of my many lenses while cleaning the filter ... ;-) .

I have also never seen an artifact arising from a filter in any of my own shots either.

However, I recommended to a friend that he chuck away the cheap (Indonesian made) Hoya filters he had and replace them with Hoya HMC filters. He was absolutely amazed at the difference this change made to the IQ of his images!

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/d/14844-3/C120644_small.jpg
Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[Chez Wimpy]

Naw, why worry about protecting the huge objective lens on a 1,500.00 USD lens?

:-x

--
-CW

 

[Chez Wimpy]

Me too. In fact a UV filter has saved damage to two very expensive lenses for me.

A friend of mine also had a lens saved when the protective filter broke on his 85LII after taking a hard bump.

Mind, the rest of the story is that the glass shards from the filter scratched the front element and (ironically) the Canon service cost was enough to have covered a whole range of multi-coated "protective" filters... which he promptly swore off.

I humbly suggest a logical fallacy in assuming broken (or even flawless) filters prevent damage that would have occurred categorically given the two objects are not 1:1 interchangeable. "Proving a negative," ect ect.

 

[John King]

Gidday Martin

After using filters on every lens, back in my first film days (late 70s), I went to no filter, due to the possibility of image quality degradation. It made some sense, since I didn't have enough money to afford good quality filters.

I saw this video from David Hobby the other day: here and it got me thinking about the whole UV filter idea.

Next step, I got B+W F-PRO filters for all my lenses, and did some sharpness tests. Results? Not a single sign of image degradation. There might be some issues with flare, but since I also use hoods on all my lenses, there is less to worry.

There are some reports of ghosting on night photography with bright lamps, and if I see them, I'll simply remove the filter. But for the rest, I just use them.

And I also hate lens caps. So, when I'm shooting, I remove them all, and put it on my bag. Back home, I clean and recap them.

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

My thoughts/experience too. The one lens I always re-cap is my FT 7-14. I also hold the cap when the lens is on my camera! The lens cap for this lens costs a fortune to replace, and it also keeps me aware of where the end of the lens is!

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Bird Control Officers on active service.

 

[Chez Wimpy]

However, I recommended to a friend that he chuck away the cheap (Indonesian made) Hoya filters he had and replace them with Hoya HMC filters. He was absolutely amazed at the difference this change made to the IQ of his images!

I am the worst, I don't use filters for protection, and when I do use them for photographic effects (PL pretty much any time I use a lens that will take them), its almost all cheapest-level Hoya linear PL's ("coatings, what coatings?") even on REALLY expensive lenses. Amortized over the 10s of thousands of landscapes even a "pro" filter would have been effectively free... but without those side-by-side comparisons, I have never figured out what I was missing. I actually do have one pro Hoya 58 CPL still sitting in the bag (purchased in those early DSLR "well, it says PRO! on it" days), but I don't use it anymore because the lens threads are too short to keep a lens cap fixed.

 

[Paul De Bra]

I always use the lens hood, independent of any lighting circumstances. It offers reasonable protection. When not expecting a next shot within a minute I put the lens cap on.

My main problem with a UV filter, especially on the 12-40, is that to put a polarizer on I have to remove the UV filter to avoid vignetting at wide angle.

 

[John King]

Gidday Paul

My understanding is that it really isn't a good idea to stack filters ...

I carry my CPLs with me, so I just swap over the "UV" filter and the PL in the case.

Agree with all those who have mentioned the high and low pass filters in the sensor stack - however, old habits of calling them "UV" filters die hard ... .

 

[slncezgsi]

Wow, thanks - I did not expect this many answers - filters are apparently a hot topic The wide spectrum of opinions and experiences is really helpful.

I have finally decided to get the filters (I went with B+W Pro slim UV filters). We will be soon visiting Denmark and later Norway - so salt and/sand may find their way on the camera and lenses + our 16 month old daughter was to touch everything and got really fast recently . And also good point was made about the lens caps - having the filters I will not feel so 'obliged' to keep putting them back on when the camera just hangs around my shoulder for a while.

So - thanks again for all your replies.

 

[Vikramdev Rao]

Olympus themselves are selling what they call protection filters so there should not be any reason to hesitate

 

[misolo]

Olympus themselves are selling what they call protection filters so there should not be any reason to hesitate

If there was no reason to hesitate, it would be included in the lens. Of course they're going to sell it if there's money to be made. It's an option rather than standard because many people (most?) choose not to.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Olympus themselves are selling what they call protection filters so there should not be any reason to hesitate

If there was no reason to hesitate, it would be included in the lens. Of course they're going to sell it if there's money to be made. It's an option rather than standard because many people (most?) choose not to.

Hoods are optional on most Olympus lenses, and they are indeed a necessity. And most people don't hesitate to purchase them.

 

[Tom899]

Hoods are optional on most Olympus lenses, and they are indeed a necessity. And most people don't hesitate to purchase them.

--
Martin

This is my first experience with purchasing Olympus lenses, the Pro lens came with a hood but the other two didn't, I had to buy separately. I was so surprised by this! I've bought at least (20) Nikon lenses, (5) Panasonic, (3) Tamron, and (4) Sigma. Each and every one came with a hood. This is the first time buying lenses since 1975 that I have to buy hoods separate. What's up with that!

--
Tom

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

if you feel more comfy shooting with filters on your lenses then do it, i don't think there is a right or wrong with this...only what makes you feel better

 

[SpinOne]

A seemingly non-controversial topic that seems to stimulate controversy.

Sayre's Law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."

FWIW, I've used expensive lenses with and without protective filters. For now, I'm sticking with it on my expensive lenses, under the "it's cheaper to replace a filter than a front element." I don't think it makes any appreciable impact on quality.