UV Filter debate

[Mike410]

Hello,

Just wondering how many people prefer using a UV filter vs those that don´t, and why you prefer or not prefer it.

Thanks,

Mike

[Photosbykev]

The only time I would use a UV filter is when I'm shooting near the sea to keep salt water off the optics. Any other time I just use quality lens hoods. They protect the lens from physical damge and improve quality by reducing any flare etc.

Using UV filters on their own just lowers image quality.

[bono]

Originally Posted by Photosbykev

The only time I would use a UV filter is when I'm shooting near the sea to keep salt water off the optics. Any other time I just use quality lens hoods. They protect the lens from physical damge and improve quality by reducing any flare etc.

Using UV filters on their own just lowers image quality.

This is exactly how I would handle it. Why spend a lot of money for a good lens and then ruin the quality with a filter? And most people who use filters only protect cheap lenses anyway - this does not make any sense.

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by Photosbykev

The only time I would use a UV filter is when I'm shooting near the sea to keep salt water off the optics. Any other time I just use quality lens hoods. They protect the lens from physical damge and improve quality by reducing any flare etc.

Using UV filters on their own just lowers image quality.

First, a quick summary: I don't mind UV filters, but I don't use them a ton either.

Now, story time! I usually take photos out and about in the wild -- hiking, camping, snowshoeing, etc. in the middle of the forest. This demands some kind of protection. I usually have used a UV filter (with no noticeable loss of image quality). It does a decent job of protecting against dirt, dust, snow, water, tree branches, etc. I even used super-cheap filters without any real problem.

For a while, I decided to try a lens hood. That ended quickly when trees started slapping the poor hood right off my camera (it's just a 1/4 twist to get it off, after all, and I was going through some very dense forests). It eventually got sacrificed to the gods of a 100 year old copper mine, when a tree snuck the hood right off my lens and down the hole.

So, what I do now is even simpler: I just keep the lens cap on. It protects great, doesn't change image quality, and stays on better than a hood in most circumstances.

I'm not necessarily recommending that course of action, but you can see that neither UV filters nor lens hoods are perfect. Choose based on your circumstances.

[OsmosisStudios]

I use a UV filter only when There's a very real possibility of the front element getting DIRTY, but not necessarily DAMAGED. Salt spray, water, mud, dirt, etc. Otherwise there's no filter.

[Bryson]

Hi guys, got a question, if you're attaching the UV filter on your lens, do you tighten it, giving a snug fit?

[Barbara V]

Originally Posted by Bryson

Hi guys, got a question, if you're attaching the UV filter on your lens, do you tighten it, giving a snug fit?

Yes, it should fit snugly.

[RolandAA]

I do most of my shooting outdoors and if I'm not near or on the water I am probably near dust and dirt so I use high quality B+W filters on my 17-40mm and 24-105mm L lenses. They are both weather sealed but Canon recommends a filter on them to complete the sealing.

[karen_s]

I am about to try the B+W for my Canon lenses. I have a couple of cheaper filters and recently discovered they are the cause of the ugly magenta tint in many of my photos. I would go without but I find myself out in the elements quite often and in the case of a mishap (and I've had them), I'd rather replace a filter than send a lens in for repair.

Originally Posted by RolandAA

... I use high quality B+W filters on my 17-40mm and 24-105mm L lenses.

Any recommendations on the B+W filter? I was leaning towards the clear one.

[WooD]

I use UV's on all my lens except my 50mm.

I shoot a lot on the beach with sea spray, fog, and blowing sand.

If they degrade my image quality, I cant tell.