is UV filter reduce image quality

Any thing placed in the way of light change the light,

To the better of the worse is only about what you want to achieve.

Let specialists explain exactly what kind of change is done by a UV filter.
 
A short and I think comprehensive reply:

An expensive one, with the light behind you will make no worthwhile difference. Into the light even an expensive one can produce veiling flare.

If using one is a good idea depends on the circumstances, the lens and you.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

Use the search function and you will learn nothing about filters, but a lot about why asking this question will irritate some people because it has been done to death.

I've two lenses used a lot where there is dirt and foliage and rarely into the light. They have B+W filters. The ones I use for scenery don't.

--
Andrew Skinner
 
Last edited:
Well, it absolutely will not increase IQ. I've never used them except for a couple years in the mid 90's when I was talked into them by the camera store when starting out in the hobby. Only the lens hood for me, and filters only when I want a specific effect - usually only a polarizer.
 
the amount of image degradation is so small (assuming you use good quality filters) that it is irrelevant.

My objection to UV filters is not about image quality, so much as it is they don't actually DO anything.

I'm sure you will get a variety of people vigorously defending the use UV filters. But after 45+ years in photography, I'm reasonably certain that I've hear ALL the arguments in UV filter's favor. None of those arguments have moved me yet.

I think all boils down to how you view your camera gear. If you see lenses as precious technology that is expensive and somewhat delicate, you will tend to favor UV filters.

If you see your lenses as useful tools that have a specific function and which will eventually wear out and be replaced anyway, you are likely to lean towards not using UV filters.

I tend to stay in the "they're just tools" camp.
 
"Does a filter affect image quality" is a trick question.

There are some situations where there is a noticeable difference, and some situations where there isn't. It depends on the specifics of the filter, the lighting, the lens, etc.

If you search around you will see lots of posts from people who have never noticed an image quality impact, and from those who have had noticeable image quality issues. Both are correct.

If you are shooting with a high quality filter, in controlled circumstances, with the light behind you, and no light sources or reflective surfaces near the field of view, then you are unlikely to notice any image quality issues.

If you have a cheap filter, a consumer lens, and are shooting a model at the beach with the sun setting in the frame, then you probably will have some additional visible flare, and an overall reduction of contrast.

Most people shoot somewhere between these two extremes. Some won't have issues, others will. There is no single overall answer is to whether or not using a filter will visibly affect Image Quality.
 
Why do people always talk about UV filters for lens protection? I've never seen a UV filter which doesn't have a slightly yellow colour cast, easily seen if you put it on a piece of white paper lit by a clouded sky or in the shade if sunny. And some filter manufacturers do actually make completely clear glass protection filters. Is the UV filter thing just because that's what the salesdroid has on the shelf and can talk a customer who's just buying a lens into buying?
 
Why do people always talk about UV filters for lens protection? I've never seen a UV filter which doesn't have a slightly yellow colour cast, easily seen if you put it on a piece of white paper lit by a clouded sky or in the shade if sunny. And some filter manufacturers do actually make completely clear glass protection filters. Is the UV filter thing just because that's what the salesdroid has on the shelf and can talk a customer who's just buying a lens into buying?
 
Shooting into the light they can make the difference between useable and not useable because of flare. The exact effect depends on the filter, lens, the design of front element, where it is relative to the filter and so on, but it will produce a lot of flare in adverse circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I use them for protection and I don't worry about image degradation. I figure there isn't enough change to matter to me anyway.

Recently I've been looking at various videos and I found a photographer that was advocating filters for landscape use. He had a good reason for what he was using but sometimes he was using polarizer + ND filter + graduated ND filter. I figure if 3 layers of filter don't affect the image enough for him to comment on it then I shouldn't worry about it.

But just like in all the other threads, I can't state compelling reasons to use or not use a filter, just do what you feel is best for you.
 
http://www.pbase.com/teiladay/uv_filter_pro_or_con

It rarely makes sense. To protect a lens... insurance makes the best sense in most cases.
It depends on the lens you are using.

If you are using a vintage lens a good UV filter may reduce lens flare, CA and purple fringing. There are pages on the web where people show these effects very clearly. Also coatings of vintage lenses are soft compared to those of modern lenses - and it is better to clean them not very often as each wisp will iake away a little of the coating or will cause scrathes. All my high quality lenses are vintage lenses and for this reason all these lenses have a high quality UV filter.

It's a different situation for modern lenses as these lenses often have the hardened glas as front element that is resistant against scratches. I know it at least from Pentax lenses that they use this technology. For these lenses UV don't make any sense: The front element of the lens does not need a mechanical protection, modern coatings and lens designs don't have problems with lens flare, CA or purple fringing and a UV filter would be a waste of time.

There is one aspect of an UV filter that may have to be considered: UV light is extremely powerful. In situations where you have a lot of it (at the beach, on the top of mountains) this high qunatity of UV may effect the light metering system of your camera and may cause wrong exposures. No problem for me as I always shott with control of the histogram (exposure to the right) - but if you trust your atuomatic you may be surprised about the resualts - if you have not an additional protection for UV from a good filter.

Best regards

Holger
 
Last edited:
the amount of image degradation is so small (assuming you use good quality filters) that it is irrelevant.

My objection to UV filters is not about image quality, so much as it is they don't actually DO anything.

I'm sure you will get a variety of people vigorously defending the use UV filters. But after 45+ years in photography, I'm reasonably certain that I've hear ALL the arguments in UV filter's favor. None of those arguments have moved me yet.
I hate using lens caps :-)
I think all boils down to how you view your camera gear. If you see lenses as precious technology that is expensive and somewhat delicate, you will tend to favor UV filters.

If you see your lenses as useful tools that have a specific function and which will eventually wear out and be replaced anyway, you are likely to lean towards not using UV filters.

I tend to stay in the "they're just tools" camp.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top