Are UV filters necessary...?
Discussion
I bought a DSLR recently, and when I bought it the salesman recommended getting a UV filter for it. Not wanting to pay his inflated price for the filter, I decided to get one of Amazon or similar for a bit cheaper.
Looking now, it seems that people have mixed opinions whether they are any use or not. The reason the salesman gave for getting one was to protect the camera sensor from UV light (saying that this could potentially damage it). Reading the reviews online no-one seems to back this up, with mixed views as to whether they are needed or not.
So, over to the minds of PH, are UV filters needed, and any recommendations of which one to get if they are?
Looking now, it seems that people have mixed opinions whether they are any use or not. The reason the salesman gave for getting one was to protect the camera sensor from UV light (saying that this could potentially damage it). Reading the reviews online no-one seems to back this up, with mixed views as to whether they are needed or not.
So, over to the minds of PH, are UV filters needed, and any recommendations of which one to get if they are?
The only times you'll find a UV filter on my cam is normally (a) if it's being transported a fair distance and I've worries that the lens cap won't stay in place, or (b) if I'm shooting somewhere that there's possibility of flying debris (WRC, drifting, motorsport etc) where that little piece of glass could stop the front glass of the lens being damaged 
The thing about protecting the sensor from UV damage is rubbish AFAIK.
Although they do have a photographic use in reducing haze, I understand that modern lenses and digital sensors have largely made this redundant. The main reason people use them is to protect the front element of the lens, using the logic that a filter is cheaper and more convenient to replace than the lens element if damaged, plus you can continue to use the lens in the meantime. The downside is a marginal reduction in image quality and increase in flare, although I suspect that you'd really have to be looking hard to notice this with a good quality filter.
Although they do have a photographic use in reducing haze, I understand that modern lenses and digital sensors have largely made this redundant. The main reason people use them is to protect the front element of the lens, using the logic that a filter is cheaper and more convenient to replace than the lens element if damaged, plus you can continue to use the lens in the meantime. The downside is a marginal reduction in image quality and increase in flare, although I suspect that you'd really have to be looking hard to notice this with a good quality filter.
AMacA said:
The reason the salesman gave for getting one was to protect the camera sensor from UV light (saying that this could potentially damage it).
Premium bulls
t. It's incredible that frontmen are allowed to peddle this tosh.If you find that things round your neck keep swinging into rocks, get a UV filter for protection.
If you're not, skip it and get fewer artifacts.
baz7175 said:
The only times you'll find a UV filter on my cam is normally (a) if it's being transported a fair distance and I've worries that the lens cap won't stay in place, or (b) if I'm shooting somewhere that there's possibility of flying debris (WRC, drifting, motorsport etc) where that little piece of glass could stop the front glass of the lens being damaged
I'll +1 this. I don't own any UV filters, but I do have some "flying crap filters" Another interesting thought is a UV filter is generally much weaker than the front element of a lens. Should a knock smash the uv filter you could possibly end up damaging the lens with parts of the UV filter.
jon- said:
Another interesting thought is a UV filter is generally much weaker than the front element of a lens. Should a knock smash the uv filter you could possibly end up damaging the lens with parts of the UV filter.
Not just for things 'smashing' into it, it just protects against scratches as well. Our camera gets (got; it died) thrown around a lot and its much nicer to think that its a £10 filter that'll take the beating first.And if a filter is weaker and breaks against the lens - can't see that being any worse than the lens taking the thump in the first place! Either way, it doesn't end well.
tinman0 said:
jon- said:
Another interesting thought is a UV filter is generally much weaker than the front element of a lens. Should a knock smash the uv filter you could possibly end up damaging the lens with parts of the UV filter.
Not just for things 'smashing' into it, it just protects against scratches as well. Our camera gets (got; it died) thrown around a lot and its much nicer to think that its a £10 filter that'll take the beating first.Lens hood and insurance are my two options. Never needed the latter! (fingers crossed touch wood etc etc etc)
AMacA said:
The reason the salesman gave for getting one was to protect the camera sensor from UV light
This was an issue with film I guess.Its 100% pure bulls
t for digital, every digital sensor (bar the leica M8) already has a strong UV filter fitted infrontof it internaly, otherwise UV will register and give you purple instead of black.See the leica M8 where they forgot to put a UV filter on the sensor so now every lens has to have one bolted to the front.
People use UV and skylite filters for protection, I dont, IMO look after your gear and use a lens hood isthe best way.
_dobbo_ said:
tinman0 said:
jon- said:
Another interesting thought is a UV filter is generally much weaker than the front element of a lens. Should a knock smash the uv filter you could possibly end up damaging the lens with parts of the UV filter.
Not just for things 'smashing' into it, it just protects against scratches as well. Our camera gets (got; it died) thrown around a lot and its much nicer to think that its a £10 filter that'll take the beating first.Lens hood and insurance are my two options. Never needed the latter! (fingers crossed touch wood etc etc etc)
edit: And the reason the salesman wanted to sell a filter is because they cost closer to £20 and its just another way of getting a bit more profit for the shop. The reason for the crap response from the guy was because no one told him it was just an optical lens cap he's selling.
Edited by tinman0 on Saturday 2nd January 20:12
AMacA said:
...saying that this could potentially damage it...
Biggest load of tosh I've heard in a LONG while!
UV filters are usefull with film as it can capture some of it. However all digital cameras these days (including the one on your phone) have a built in UV and IR filter, right in front of the sensor, making the use of a UV filter on the lens redundant. These days the only point like many have mentioned is for protection of the lens, although I personaly don't tend to bother becuase of lens flare.
As far as damaging the sensor... couldn't be further from the truth, the sensor doesn't care what light hits it. In fact there are some photographers who modify a DLSR, removing the built in filter to allow IR and UV spectrum photos.
Somestuff on IR and UV photography here, showing the sensor is perfectly happy with UV light: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
This is a time-worn subject and there are always people for and against. However, I remember the day I put the 80/200 f2.8 on the table and it rolled off onto the tiled floor. The UV was smashed, but the lens intact. I've kept on using them for this reason since I am often in the wild and have scratched UVs on branches, trees, brambles or whatever but because of the filter never damaged a lens. Personally, I don't find there is much diference, for example, between the 70/200 with a UV or the 200/400 to which one can't fix a filter at all, except the polariser which is internal. I guess you pays your money and takes your choice, but if you do put one on then I would recommend the Hoyas which are cheaper than Canon or Nikon and in my book just as good.
All of my lenses get a UV filter slapped on them the second they're out of the manufacturer's box. They're useful protection against finger marks, raindrops, splashes and so on - I'm quite happy to give a £20 UV filter a good rub with the corner of my shirt. I wouldn't do that to the front element of a £400 lens.
Also, I was recently interested to note a small dint that had mysteriously appeared in the metal part of one of my filters, knackering the thread. I cared not a jot, but would have been a bit ticked off had it been the lens body itself.
Also, I was recently interested to note a small dint that had mysteriously appeared in the metal part of one of my filters, knackering the thread. I cared not a jot, but would have been a bit ticked off had it been the lens body itself.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff