Filters? UV?

[KimberleyPhotography]

When I purchased my new lens (Nikkor 70-300vr) I was upsold on getting a UV Filter to protect it.

My question is does this affect the quality of the pictures, especially since 99% of the time I use this lens outdoors. I really don't want to comprimise good Nikkor glass with a cheap 30$ filter...

If not this filter are there any other filters I should think about getting?

[digirebelva]

have an issue with lens flare with a cheap uv filter. I know I have (especially with night shots) and have since removed the filter. Others with the more expensive ones have reported no issues

[Major_Small]

You should always have a UV filter on every lens at all times. Always. A good (multicoated) filter won't degrade image quality, and it protects your lens. Even if you've got a lens hood on to protect from impacts, it'll protect from dust, sand, etc.

I can't stress this enough, mostly because my 30D just took it's first big tumble the other day, and the UV filter saved the lens. This is the third or fourth time I've had that happen. (The previous times were on other bodies).

The old argument against it is that you're shooting through a cheap piece of glass. Be assured that if all the glass in your lens was made to the same demanding specifications as the glass in a quality UV filter, it'd probably cost into the thousands, even for a kit lens. The lens may be more expensive than a filter, but divide that cost by all the pieces of glass and all the moving parts and all the mechanical equipment and all the engineering that goes into them, and you end up with relatively cheap glass.

[Nicole]

Yep, I pretty much agree with Major_Small. Of course, I do take the filter off when I'm doing long exposures at night, but that's the exception, since most of the time I'm not out doing that.

[GEli]

I only shoot with UV filters in harsh conditions like blowing sand. I always use a hood and am careful that nothing ever comes near the front element of my lens, so I really see no point in my case. Front elements are alarmingly tough by themselves and in the case of massive trauma, such as a drop, the UV filter will do nothing to protect the lens.

That being said, I do tend to have one mounted on lenses getting locked onto my film camera. That's for UV ray removal, though, and not protection. If you feel you must have a UV/Clear filter for whatever reason, buy a high quality multicoated filter to minimize the amount of added flare. B+W and Hoya PRO are both good brands - but be sure to get the MC variety.

[Major_Small]

Originally Posted by GEli

Front elements are alarmingly tough by themselves and in the case of massive trauma, such as a drop, the UV filter will do nothing to protect the lens.

I've dropped my bodies three or four times, and had the UV filter take the damage instead of my lens each time. Sure, if a piece of iron were to go right through your lens it wouldn't help, but in most of the cases I've seen, blows that break lenses comes to the edge of the lens, where the filter's ring will take the blow instead of your lens.

If you don't believe me, here's one of the filters, and the picture just happened to be taken with the lens that it saved:

I believe that was the least damaged of the four that I've broken. The first one had a pretty nasty deformation on it's ring - I wish I'd kept that one. The last one was reduced to shards of glass and a metal ring. But it's the reason I could shoot the baptism that I needed to shoot this week.

Those are just my own experiences. I've seen many more during my time at photo labs and camera shops.

[Elmo]

Curosity killed the cat but I have a question. If one feels a uv filter degrades an image sometimes why does it not do so the other times?

The UV filter was ok in the old film days because the film was matt surfaced and reflected very little light back toward the lens. A digital sensor on the other hand is shinny (look at it) it reflects lots of light back into the lens causing additional flair. A lens is designed to handle some flair in its design. A filter is perfectly flat, and even with multi=coating it reflects back causing soft/fogged images.

If UV filters are so important why are filter threads omitted on all upper end long telephotos?

I only us a protective filter when conditions demand it (Rain and such). Whether one uses a protective filter is the users decision. The user must weigh the facts concerning his usage. I prefer to not use one for image quality concerns.

[Major_Small]

Originally Posted by Elmo

If UV filters are so important why are filter threads omitted on all upper end long telephotos?

They use drop-in filters - it cuts down on cost. The weight and cost of using filters that large would become prohibitive.

I never said they were vital to the lens's operation - but there's no good reason to not use them. Meanwhile, there are very good and practical reasons to use them. As for ghosting/flaring, MC filters do indeed eliminate them for most cases. Any lens will flare under certain conditions, however, filters or not.

I'm not sure which filters you're seeing ghosting with, but I've never had that problem with decent-quality MC filters.

[Elmo]

How does a drop in filter at the rear of a lens help with protection?

I use Hoya SMC's and B&W's. even Hoya says their filter are the best at reducing filter introduced flair, focus shift, etc, but they never claim these are not introduced by their filters.

And yes most lenses flair and in my experience it gets even worse with filters on digital cameras.

[RexK_Cozumel]

I have to agree with the not using a filter all the time for "protection." I mean honestly if you are prone to dropping your camera on the ground perhaps you should start using the camera strap. If that is still not enough then go get some camera armor. It is completely absurd to use a uv filter on all your lenses for protection only. That is like saying I am going to start putting a ram on the front of my car so if I get in a wreck it will not hurt my car.