Reading mode: Light Dark

Does digital SLR needs UV filter?

Go to last post
C

cheerful

Well-known member
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Location
US
UV filter is needed b/c of how film reacts to UV light. For digital SLR, do we need still it (other than protecting the lens)? Does it depend on whether it's CCD or COMS?

Thanks!
 
There is an expensive piece of glass inside all DSLRs that cuts out both UV and most IR light.

Some people feel that the filter can protect the lens, but personally I don't believe that is the case,

Nick
 
A UV is good for protecting the front lens element in nasty situations.
Never used one on my digital cams in 10 years tho.

WB
====================
nick_webster said:
There is an expensive piece of glass inside all DSLRs that cuts out
both UV and most IR light.

Some people feel that the filter can protect the lens, but personally
I don't believe that is the case,

Nick
Click to expand...
 
cheerful said:
UV filter is needed b/c of how film reacts to UV light. For digital
SLR, do we need still it (other than protecting the lens)? Does it
depend on whether it's CCD or COMS?
Click to expand...
No. Sensors are silicon. The UV resistance depends on the filter that the manufacturer places over the sensor.

Film is photochemical, and UV photons are more energetic than visible light photons, so film was very sensitive to UV. Silicon is a bit different. And, at the same time, lenses got more complex: more elements, more exotic glass recipes, and more complex adhesives holding lenses together, all of which increased the UV blocking ability of lenses. The end result, the UV filter becomes superfluous, except for very rare photographic situations.

When photographing subjects that are illuminated by blacklights (whether the fluorescent body paintings I do for "fun" or the fluorescent stains and dyes for serious failure analysis) an extra strong UV2 or B+W 415 UV filter dramatically improves the image. The lights "leak" enough really near UV (like 390nm) and the UV power is so much hither than the visible light power from the fluorescence that UV adds "purple glow" to the shot. The B+W 415 filter blocks UV and some barely visible violet all the way up to 415nm (hence the designation 415).

Aside from that really rare case, the whole concept of "protection" filters is really a bit off base. If you've never seen the "grand filter thread", the whole thing is worth a read, it's like a short book on filters...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=29592761

And this lovely quote about the whole concept of "protective" filters from a bit down the thread...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=29592822

"At some point in time, you have to sit back and say “how serious am I about photography. Am I out to spend years at this and come back with the best lenses, cleaner and less scratched than anyone else’s, or am I out to come back with the best pictures, sharper, with less flare and more contrast, and more sellable than anyone else’s?”

Rain and dust can be cleaned off a lens, without hurting it, if you take the time to learn how to do it right. Hoods prevent most impacts, and do a much better job of handling "hard knocks" than filters.

I use filters when there are dangerous materials flying about, things that will destroy a lens (abrasives, chemicals, etc) for industrial photography. Lately, I've even been leaving them off for the really filthy "play" locations like abandoned buildings and beeches.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
cheerful said:
UV filter is needed b/c of how film reacts to UV light. For digital
SLR, do we need still it (other than protecting the lens)? Does it
depend on whether it's CCD or COMS?
Click to expand...
No. Sensors are silicon. The UV resistance depends on the filter that
the manufacturer places over the sensor.

Film is photochemical, and UV photons are more energetic than visible
light photons, so film was very sensitive to UV.
Click to expand...
That is a very generalizing statement, which might have been true 30 years ago. Most modern film emulsions (i.e. introduced within the last 15 years) have fairly low UV sensitivity. In fact UV filters with modern films are necessary only in rather special circumstances such as more than 1000 meters above sea level during the summer, or close the the equator, and even then some films would be mostly unaffected, while others would show only moderate UV haze at worst. The exception would be ancient emulsions, for example Kodachrome, which is basically late 1970s technology, but not too many of those are left now or were even 5 years ago. The need for UV filters as standard equipment disappeared about 20 years ago for most people and situations.
 
The short answer is that DSLR sensors do NOT respond to UV light in the same way that film does (did?), so there is no significant benefit from filtering UV light with your DSLR.

I do not use "protective" filters, and I do shoot in places and situations including coastal spray, desert sand and dust, mountain rain and snow.

I do use a lens cap and a lens hood and I exercise due care with my equipment.

If you still believe that you must use a "protective" filter on your lens, use the highest quality clear glass filter you can find.

Dan
cheerful said:
UV filter is needed b/c of how film reacts to UV light. For digital
SLR, do we need still it (other than protecting the lens)? Does it
depend on whether it's CCD or COMS?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
IM: gdanmitchell
'Like you, I also own photography stuff.'
 
Interesting, I've always used UV filters on my cameras, principally from the protection point of view, mind you that does go back some years. I'd sooner wipe salt spray from a filter than a coated lens or am I being paranoid :-)

--
artyman
http://www.artyman.co.uk
 
artyman said:
Interesting, I've always used UV filters on my cameras, principally
from the protection point of view, mind you that does go back some
years. I'd sooner wipe salt spray from a filter than a coated lens
or am I being paranoid :-)
Click to expand...
Lens glass is actually pretty hard and durable stuff. Not only that, but keeping a pristine front element is not as important as some think. While you certainly don't want things to get too messy, a bit of dust, etc. on the front element will have absolutely no visible effect on your photographs.

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
IM: gdanmitchell
'Like you, I also own photography stuff.'
 
gdanmitchell said:
artyman said:
Interesting, I've always used UV filters on my cameras, principally
from the protection point of view, mind you that does go back some
years. I'd sooner wipe salt spray from a filter than a coated lens
or am I being paranoid :-)
Click to expand...
Lens glass is actually pretty hard and durable stuff. Not only that,
but keeping a pristine front element is not as important as some
think. While you certainly don't want things to get too messy, a
bit of dust, etc. on the front element will have absolutely no
visible effect on your photographs.
Click to expand...
There's a pretty interesting thread about this over on photo.net right now.

http://photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00RnZO

It cites experiments done by a lens rental house to determine how scratched up a lens can get before the image is degraded.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
I just don't feel like constantly cleaning dust and crud off of the front element, I'd much rather do it from the filter.
 
MusicDoctorDJ said:
This one did!

Click to expand...
If it was broken by a flying rock, you are correct it did protect the front element of the lens. If it was broken by a drop, it's unlikely to have done anything to protect the lens since the full force (minus the tiny amount of energy soaked up when the ring compressed a bit to crack the filter glass) would also be transferred to the lens.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
--

It doesn't have to be a sandstorm. I've lived in Phoenix, AZ, for over 25 years. A high quallity Hoya clear glass filter (NOT a UV filter) is on the front of all of my good lenses. After about three years, the front of the filter looks gently sandblasted. You just have to remember that in some circumstances it needs to come off.

Lens coatings have come a LONG way, and unless you're in an area with a lot of sand/dust always in the air, I'm not sure that they're needed as they were a decade or two ago.

No ultimate "right way."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top