Discussion
Whenever I buy a new lens, I am in the habit of fitting a UV protector for it. Mainly to protect the lens. However I have read some stuff on the internet saying that UV protection is not required on modern DSLR's. If so then have I been wasting my time and should just fit clear lens protectors instead. What's your opinion?
UV or Skylight. A digital camera needs neither technically I think, the only reason is for physical protection.
That said I never use either because I don't want two more glass/air interfaces between the subject and the sensor. In 13 years of having an £1100 lens on the front of my camera, I have never once damaged it or smashed it into a drystone wall. So my 4p is - don't bother
If you think you might be clumsy, a lens hood will do the job and might actually be useful.
That said I never use either because I don't want two more glass/air interfaces between the subject and the sensor. In 13 years of having an £1100 lens on the front of my camera, I have never once damaged it or smashed it into a drystone wall. So my 4p is - don't bother
If you think you might be clumsy, a lens hood will do the job and might actually be useful.
Only if you need a clear filter to complete weather sealing.
Otherwise total waste of time and money, liable to damage your lens worse than not having one and likely to impact image quality in every shot.
On the up side the camera store likely makes more on the uv filter than the lens...
Otherwise total waste of time and money, liable to damage your lens worse than not having one and likely to impact image quality in every shot.
On the up side the camera store likely makes more on the uv filter than the lens...
toohuge said:
I don’t disagree with the others. It depends on what you shoot, I shoot a lot of sport and my cameras are always getting covered in rain, mud, sand etc. so I use either uv, nc or protector ones to make cleaning the lenses easier.
I would say this type of use is probably the only time UV filters make sense. If the lens is likely to get a soaking in salt water or abrasive particles. Otherwise, largely useless IMO. I always use them on L lenses to complete weather sealing and because I'm paranoid about scratching the front element and having to keep it clean. I don't think I've ever taken one off - just stick on when I un-box the lens and forget about it. They hardly seem like a waste of money when they cost a fraction of the lens itself.
theboss said:
I always use them on L lenses to complete weather sealing and because I'm paranoid about scratching the front element and having to keep it clean. I don't think I've ever taken one off - just stick on when I un-box the lens and forget about it. They hardly seem like a waste of money when they cost a fraction of the lens itself.
How could the front glass be scratched if the hood is fitted? And, I've seen horrible photos of the damage done to the front glass and filter threads at the front of a lens when a lens is dropped with a filter fitted... no thanks.
Craikeybaby said:
I've had a UV filter smashed, whilst the lens hood was fitted. I was shooting some skiing and a skier messed up his jump and landed on me.
I'm glad it was a cheap, replaceable filter that took the brunt of the impact, rather than the front element of the lens.
Whilst it's good that your lens survived to fight another day and who knows 100% what would happen if the filter hadn't been on, it is worth mentioning that filter glass is generally very thin and is completely flat meaning it's shape gives it no inherent strength at all. In contrast a front element is usually a big thick chunk of convex glass that can take an enormous amount of abuse. I've seen this first hand when I a 70-200 I had took a 40 foot plunge down some rocks. Despite taking a direct hit on the front element at very high speed (quite sickening watching that, I can assure you!), the actual glass only had a small chip and small scuffs to show for it. The lens itself was a total write off though! I'm glad it was a cheap, replaceable filter that took the brunt of the impact, rather than the front element of the lens.
I think my conclusion when reading various tests is that if a projectile is going to hit the front element with enough force to damage it, it will go through a UV filter like it is not even there. But worse than that, it will create many small fragments of sharp glass in doing so (one of the few things hard enough to cause damage to other glass) right around your front element. My view is that in those circumstance, they'll do more harm than good.
But as I said earlier, where they do have a use it in protecting your lens from abrasion. Airborne sand in particular is not something you want giving your lens a shot blasting. In that scenario, a filter is unquestionably useful.
Tony1963 said:
How could the front glass be scratched if the hood is fitted?
And, I've seen horrible photos of the damage done to the front glass and filter threads at the front of a lens when a lens is dropped with a filter fitted... no thanks.
I’m just a bit paranoid thats all. Routine cleaning with a suitable cloth/wipe could cause small scratches, all it takes is one abrasive little particle. Its a bit like putting PPF on a car I guess. I just think of the filter as a protective element. The front optics of my lenses have never been exposed - I put a filter on the moment its unboxed and thats the end of that. Can’t believe its controversial - it may be deemed pointless / unnessary for sure - but its hardly a waste of money. It’s not like they are £500 a piece.And, I've seen horrible photos of the damage done to the front glass and filter threads at the front of a lens when a lens is dropped with a filter fitted... no thanks.
Mucky?
Over the last few years all I've had to do is blow dust of my lenses.
I've occasionally fitted a polariser if I feel it's necessary, but usually my lenses are naked.
A £2k lens with an £80 filter on the front doesn't make sense unless I deem it necessary. And, a bit of dust on the front lens element will have almost zero effect on images. A bit of dust a few millimetres infront of the lens stands more chance of causing issues.
Over the last few years all I've had to do is blow dust of my lenses.
I've occasionally fitted a polariser if I feel it's necessary, but usually my lenses are naked.
A £2k lens with an £80 filter on the front doesn't make sense unless I deem it necessary. And, a bit of dust on the front lens element will have almost zero effect on images. A bit of dust a few millimetres infront of the lens stands more chance of causing issues.
Tony1963 said:
All fair points, but at the end of each day just think about your shoots and decide what the risks were. I bet there few to none.
I'm careful with my lenses so they don't get put in harm's way in the first place. I don't even put protective screens on my iPhones.
I don't put protective screens on my phones either. I buy the best lenses I can afford and plan to keep them long term in contrast to phones which are cheaper and comparatively disposable / short term and also easily repaired, so I figure it helps to try and preserve them in the best state. I haven't sustained any damage to any lens or filter either, but I do enjoy piece of mind knowing that if I get some raindrops or a kid's fingerprint on the end of a lens I can give it a wipe without worrying I'm scratching it.I'm careful with my lenses so they don't get put in harm's way in the first place. I don't even put protective screens on my iPhones.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff