-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Are UV filters necessary?
- Thread starter Desifinado
- Start date
Steve H
Veteran Member
Digital cameras aren't sensitive to UV light like film bodies used to be, so there is no need for a UV filter to filter out UV light.
Generally, photographers who do fit a UV filter do so for another reason entirely - front element protection. Plain glass "protective" filters are also available for the same purpose. Essentially these don't perform any filtering function but act as a protective barrier between the front element and flying debris such as sand, mud, rocks, weld spatter etc. which could otherwise damage the lens.
Adding a filter (particularly a cheap, un-coated one) invariably degrades IQ to some extent, so most don't fit a "protective" filter unless shooting in adverse conditions where the loss of IQ is a necessary trade-off to protect the lens from damage. A small proportion feel happier using a protective filter 24/7 and wear the image degradation that goes with it.
--
Steve H
Generally, photographers who do fit a UV filter do so for another reason entirely - front element protection. Plain glass "protective" filters are also available for the same purpose. Essentially these don't perform any filtering function but act as a protective barrier between the front element and flying debris such as sand, mud, rocks, weld spatter etc. which could otherwise damage the lens.
Adding a filter (particularly a cheap, un-coated one) invariably degrades IQ to some extent, so most don't fit a "protective" filter unless shooting in adverse conditions where the loss of IQ is a necessary trade-off to protect the lens from damage. A small proportion feel happier using a protective filter 24/7 and wear the image degradation that goes with it.
--
Steve H
jbzspace
Well-known member
Some Canon lenses are weather sealed....others are not. Those unsealed or partially sealed lenses need a front element filter to seal or add weather protection.
Do a Google search and you will come up with lens lists and discussions of the subject.
Do a Google search and you will come up with lens lists and discussions of the subject.
Steve H
Veteran Member
Only four lenses in this category - the two versions of the 16-35L, the 17-40L and the 50/1.2L.
The other 10 lenses which are weather sealed don't need a filter to complete sealing and the remaining 130 EF lenses aren't sealed at all and will let in dust and water with or without a filter.
--
Steve H
R2D2
Forum Pro
Like all other camera accessories, it's just another tool in the box. Screw on a protective filter when you deem it necessary. Some folks use one 1% of the time, others 100%.
Personally, I only use it to protect against blowing sand/spray (I prefer the B+W MRC so as to minimize image degradation). But I do use a hood 100% of the time.
R2
--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries
I'm not sure if they specifically have anti-UV coating, but they do not let pass much UV:
see here two examples from lenstip, who occasionally tests transmission curves of lenses:
http://www.lenstip.com/298.9-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-70_mm_f_2.8G_ED_Ghosting__flares_and_transmission.html
If you do decide to get a filter for protection, get a good multicoated one,
also often tested by lenstip;
http://photonius.wikispaces.com/Filters
--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©
Ghozer
Veteran Member
Fascinating. I never knew this. Thanks for the info. Though, I certainly dislike the idea of putting a stupid filter on my 16-35 II to weather seal it, when needed.
Cheers,
Doug
http://doglesby.zenfolio.com/
--Only four lenses in this category - the two versions of the 16-35L, the 17-40L and the 50/1.2L.
The other 10 lenses which are weather sealed don't need a filter to complete sealing and the remaining 130 EF lenses aren't sealed at all and will let in dust and water with or without a filter.
--
Steve H
Cheers,
Doug
http://doglesby.zenfolio.com/
tonyjr
Veteran Member
All my lenses have filters .
To me it helps with glare , protects and helps seal lens .
If you really want to know - go to the snow , desert , lake or ocean when sun is bright - from 10-2 . TAKE a shot north south , east and west - put on a filter same shots - no flare ? I read that somewhere . I did mine in what is called hi mountain desert .
None of my lenses have dust in them . I use B+W only UV , KSM CPL , ND Diopters - etc .
The 17-55 is the best efs lens canon makes . Here is a post on how to remove dust . You can see how dust gets in .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZRN2mxajk
Use UV - maybe it helps with glare , protects and helps seal lens . Don't and maybe cry later .
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25
To me it helps with glare , protects and helps seal lens .
If you really want to know - go to the snow , desert , lake or ocean when sun is bright - from 10-2 . TAKE a shot north south , east and west - put on a filter same shots - no flare ? I read that somewhere . I did mine in what is called hi mountain desert .
None of my lenses have dust in them . I use B+W only UV , KSM CPL , ND Diopters - etc .
The 17-55 is the best efs lens canon makes . Here is a post on how to remove dust . You can see how dust gets in .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZRN2mxajk
Use UV - maybe it helps with glare , protects and helps seal lens . Don't and maybe cry later .
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25
Brian D. Schneider
Veteran Member
A UV filter can increase flare, it will never reduce it.
--
Brian Schneider
tkbslc
Forum Pro
Short answer: NO.
Luvthelight
Forum Enthusiast
Short answer : yes.
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "necessary"?
Lots of people are going around shooting pictures without UV filters every day, so it's difficult to understand how anyone would argue that they are "necessary".
I understand that some people consider them to be more beneficial than they are harmful and are therefore "advisable" or "a good idea"... but trying to make the argument that they are "necessary" would be pretty difficult, and I guess you agree because you didn't even try.
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
UV filtering is essentially worthless on DSLRs.
http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12/27/uv-filter-or-not
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
RustyRus
Senior Member
LOL...yea a UV filter decreases flare....maybe you don't understand what causes flare..........
Filters have there place but not for reducing flare....
http://www.rustywilliamsphotography.com
Filters have there place but not for reducing flare....
--
http://www.rustywilliamsphotography.com
007peter
Forum Pro
UV are NOT necessary, but a good idea if you value your lens
I had a 28-135mm IS kit lens that I was planing to selling it for $265-$280 on Craigslist. That is the going rate. Stupid me, somehow I manged to put a tiny scratch on the front element. The scratch isn't deep, and doesn't affect photo unless stepping down pass f/16.
Nonetheless, that tiny scratch cost me $100. I end up selling an almost brand new 28-135mm IS for $180 due to that scratch on the front element. Hum....buying a $5 UV on ebay to save a $100 seem like a good idea after my experienced.
I had a 28-135mm IS kit lens that I was planing to selling it for $265-$280 on Craigslist. That is the going rate. Stupid me, somehow I manged to put a tiny scratch on the front element. The scratch isn't deep, and doesn't affect photo unless stepping down pass f/16.
Nonetheless, that tiny scratch cost me $100. I end up selling an almost brand new 28-135mm IS for $180 due to that scratch on the front element. Hum....buying a $5 UV on ebay to save a $100 seem like a good idea after my experienced.
tocar
Veteran Member
It's not necessary but can be helpful. The filter took away some bluish cast when I was photographing at Yosemite. Lens protection is another reason I put one on in addition of a lens hood. Investing on expensive lenses I rather be cautious. Accidents do happen and can't be avoided sometimes but if the filter does it's job then it's worth it.
Oystein Soreide
Leading Member
sensor has uv filter
Oystein Soreide
Leading Member
good filters costs more than $100 and if need one for each lens it really ends up in much
money.
I rather take the cost if I scratch a lens....
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Unlike film, most digital cameras are not sensitive to UV light, so it is not necessary to filter it out.
Any filter adds an additional layer of glass to the optical equation. If your filter was 100% perfect, and you were shooting under ideal conditions, this would not harm the image.
If your filter was made by humans, and not gods, it won't be 100% perfect, and shooting conditions are seldom ideal. At best the filter won't noticeably hurt the image.
The biggest issue with filters is that they are flat and parallel to the very shiny sensor. This is conducive to light bouncing back an forth between the sensor and the filter. This can reduce the contrast of your image. Film isn't as shiny, so this isn't an issue for those who shoot film.
If there are light sources in your image, or near your image, the parallel reflective surfaces also increase the likelihood of traditional flare artifacts.
If you want to maximize contrast, and minimize flare, you may want to shoot without filters.
Of course you need to look at the bigger picture. Filters move the frontmost piece of glass from being recessed in the lens to right out in front. This makes damage more likely, and fingerprints more likely. You have also moved the fingerprint further forward, which means that they are slightly closer to the plane of focus.
Realistically, if you buy a very high quality filter, and shoot in controlled circumstance, then you probably won't notice any reduction in quality from a filter.
On the plus side, filters are an important profit center for your local camera store. competitive pressure minimizes the profit they make on the camera, They need the profit from filter sales in order to stay in business. You should support your local camera store by buying their filters. You don't need to use them.
Any filter adds an additional layer of glass to the optical equation. If your filter was 100% perfect, and you were shooting under ideal conditions, this would not harm the image.
If your filter was made by humans, and not gods, it won't be 100% perfect, and shooting conditions are seldom ideal. At best the filter won't noticeably hurt the image.
The biggest issue with filters is that they are flat and parallel to the very shiny sensor. This is conducive to light bouncing back an forth between the sensor and the filter. This can reduce the contrast of your image. Film isn't as shiny, so this isn't an issue for those who shoot film.
If there are light sources in your image, or near your image, the parallel reflective surfaces also increase the likelihood of traditional flare artifacts.
If you want to maximize contrast, and minimize flare, you may want to shoot without filters.
Of course you need to look at the bigger picture. Filters move the frontmost piece of glass from being recessed in the lens to right out in front. This makes damage more likely, and fingerprints more likely. You have also moved the fingerprint further forward, which means that they are slightly closer to the plane of focus.
Realistically, if you buy a very high quality filter, and shoot in controlled circumstance, then you probably won't notice any reduction in quality from a filter.
On the plus side, filters are an important profit center for your local camera store. competitive pressure minimizes the profit they make on the camera, They need the profit from filter sales in order to stay in business. You should support your local camera store by buying their filters. You don't need to use them.
tocar
Veteran Member
Flares can be minimized by the petal shaped lens hood. Most flares happens due to the light hitting the side of the lens and bouncing off other lenses to the sensor. Multicoated filters can minimize flares but not completely.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum