Uv filters

[SportsMel]

Hi,
I have a Nikon D90, I have 3 lenses 18-105mm, 70-200mm & 17-55mm

I have been told that I should get a uv filter for each lens to protect it from damage.

Do you think this is a good idea, will my photos have that same clarity with this filter on?

Should I spend $$ on a UV filter for each lens?

[RichardTaylor]

"Quote"
will my photos have that same clarity with this filter on?

They will not

Quote.
"Do you think this is a good idea?"
If shooting in inhospitable environments then yes.

Quote".
"Should I spend $$ on a UV filter for each lens?
If they are of a different filter size, and you are only using one camera body/lens and shooting in inhospitable environments then yes.

[OsmosisStudios]

I only have a UV filter on one of my lenses regularly, my two-lens journalism kit does include a UV filter, but its rarely on the lenses. Only if I foresee getting them dirty in some way (water spray, physical damage, etc). I always keep a hood on my lenses.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by SportsMel

Do you think this is a good idea, will my photos have that same clarity with this filter on?

The difference will, 98% of the time not be noticeable.

1.99% of the rest of teh time, you'll if the filter will cause extra glare/reflection, and you can remove it.

The other 0.01% of the time, you might have a shot that's otherwise affected by one more bit of glass in front of your lens. If that's a big deal to you, don't use a filter.

However, when you have a $1200 lens and you can put $40 filter on it as some insurance, well, "smart" is one word that comes to mind. Wait until you crack something -- homefully it's a filter and not your front element.

That said, if you're not shooting anywhere that there's a danger of your camera smacking into anything -- that is, if you use it indoors only and all of your floors and furniture are padded and you have no pets or small children -- that extra insurance isn't necessary.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

That said, if you're not shooting anywhere that there's a danger of your camera smacking into anything -- that is, if you use it indoors only and all of your floors and furniture are padded and you have no pets or small children -- that extra insurance isn't necessary.

This is a heated debate, but I have to disagree here. As long as you're not unreasonably clumsy, there shouldnt be the need for a protective filter.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

This is a heated debate, but I have to disagree here.

I respect your opinion, and I also acknowledge that this is a matter of some debate.

However, personally, I feel that the very very rare cases of UV filters harming photo quality do not obviate the benefit of having a UV filter on the lens for general protection.

I know that advocating for using a UV filter used to be quite popular, and these days it's a little "edgy" to advocate against. If anyone wants to forgo using a filter, I think that's fine; I just want them to know that in the vast majority of cases it will not affect their image quality -- contrary to the erroneous claims of some.

Sincerely,
-someone who has cracked more than one filter.

[nicled]

Be safe, get a UV filter as protection for your lens. If you think the UV filter will alter color, etc., maybe you can get a filter with a clear lens, purposely to protect your lenses. Digital lenses are expensive and a filter (UV or not) will protect them from scratches, dirt, etc. My two cents worth...

[inkista]

I use UVs on all my lenses (except my fisheye). I'm clumsy and careless, and I shoot in dusty back canyons and at the beach a lot. I prefer being able to wipe the filter off with a shirt tail, without having to worry about whether or not I'm going to scratch the lens coating.

If you think you may ever sell a lens, having a pristine front element can be a good thing.

I shot for two decades with an OM-10 and a single 50mm f/1.8 lens. I never used a lens cap. Never used a hood. I had a filter screwed onto the front of the lens the whole time. I took that camera everywhere. To the zoo, the the beach, to Antarctica... The front element is still absolutely pristine. Accidents happen. I prefer planning for them.

I would, however, advise that if you are going to use UV filters, don't go for supercheap ones. Go for decent coated ones. I like Hoya HMCs and Super HMCs.

And I actually do think they affect image quality. I just happen to think it's not enough to worry about. If the filter gets in the way, I can take it off. Is a UV filter more expensive than it's worth? Maybe. The lensrentals guys say it costs them less to replace front elements than it does to put UV filters on all their lenses (link).

This is a matter of personal tastes and tolerances.

[LeeR]

I have to admit I thought the UV filter was a dumb idea until I slipped on a rockcrossing a stream with a borrowed camera and thought I broke the lens. What great news to learn that I had only broken a $20 filter. Plus I have had it happen a couple of times since and seen it happen to others.

However, if had a big lens that usually stayed in the case, like a 600mm prime that required a 200mm UV filter, I'd probably take my chances.

When I was shooting a lot of weddings I used to use a star-cross filter instead of a UV. Most of the time it didn't do anything, but it always made the candle shots look great.

[vandergus]

Some things to keep in mind while you're evaluating whether or not you want to us UV filters for protection.

1. When a UV filter breaks due to impact, it doesn't necessarily mean that it kept the front element from breaking or being damaged
2. Image degredation from UV filters may not be apparent when looking through the viewfinder but still noticeable in the final image
3. Peace of mind is sometimes worth paying for
4. If you're going to use a filter, don't buy cheap filters.
5. If the front element does get damaged, it doesn't mean the lens is totaled. Replacing just the front element is often much cheaper than replacing the whole lens.
6. This is also interesting.