Expensive UV Filter - Is It Worth It?

[rdonson]

A couple of my thoughts on filters.

I use filters.  There I said it.  I became a fan when I got clumsy once and smashed a filter.  Without the filter it would have been the lens that got smashed.

I typically get B+W with brass threads.  It only takes one stuck filter to swear off aluminum threads.  Yes, you can put a drop of anti-seize on the threads but then you may have something new to collect crud. 

For those who don't believe in using filters, what do you do when you NEED an ND filter or a circular polarizer?

[faberryman]

For those who don't believe in using filters, what do you do when you NEED an ND filter or a circular polarizer?

When I need a ND filter or a circular polarizer, I use a ND filter or circular filter.

[Two23]

When I need a ND filter or a circular polarizer, I use a ND filter or circular filter.

+1

I often do use a polarizer for outdoor daytime shots.  Rarely use an ND filter with my Nikon, but often do with my pre-Civil War lenses to slow exposure down to 1 second.  (These lenses have no shutter so I use a black rag to start/stop exposure.)  I don't routinely have filters on my lenses because:  (1) have had a filter break and damage lens  (2) I often get flare, even with quality MRC filters (3) don't want to have to take a filter off a lens to put another one on.  I do use a lens hood 100% of the time, even at night.  Lens cap is on when I'm not looking through the camera.  Lens hoods absorb shock if lens collides with something or deflects something bad from hitting the front element.  Lens cap is practically bullet proof and is what I rely on to protect my lenses.

  This guy actually tested the filter myths and came up with some pretty convincing conclusions  Do watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds&feature=youtu.be

I've been doing the same as he suggests and have never had a lens get scratched.  I've had three get damaged from being dropped or blown over by the wind, but a filter would just have added to the damage total!


Kent in SD

[govindvkumar]

In my opinion UV Filter itself is not very useful, be it expensive or a cheap. Never use cheap UV filters, as it has a great impact on image quality. uV filters are useful for film camera, where the films are more prone to the uV light. Latest digital camera sensor doen't have much impact on the image quality with UV rays falling on it. Have a look at this article on UV filter.
What Does a UV Filter Do
You may find it useful.

[jeremyrh]

polarized response

Taxi for Mr Bizarro 

[Brookie]

Here are a few additional considerations.

Lens hoods are great, but relying on them solely for your lens protection means you are stuck with:
 A - having full sets of filters for each lens with a different attachment size
 B - not using square or rectangular filters such as graduated ND filters (personally I don’t do this anyway, I just deal with it in post)
 C - using those cheap rubber lens hoods that aren’t optimized for your lens - for instance if you use a standardized set of filters with step-up rings which negates the opportunity to use the the manufacturers lens hood if the attachment size is not the same as the native size of the lens

I only own 5 lenses, 3 are 77mm filter size. One is 62mm - a macro lens. One is 67mm - a 70-200mm f4 zoom that is lighter, sharper, and less expensive than the f2.8 version (for me all of those are positives in favor of the f4 lens). So to rely solely on the lens hood for protection would require me to carry three sets of ND and polar filters - more bulk, more weight, and greater expense (all negatives in my opinion).

High quality filters have not degraded image quality in my experience. I do use clear protective filters. I carry one set of 77mm ND and polar filters plus a spare polar and a spare clear along with step-up rings. When I can’t use the original lens hood I use an old dark slide to shield the lens from flare. I also agree with several posts that cleaning a filter is easier than cleaning the front element of many lenses. Also, I have scratched at least one protective filter in the last 2 years - it could just as well have been the front element of my lens.

So for me, there is no perfect answer to this filter dilemma but, for me, the best compromise is what I’ve outlined in the previous paragraph. So you’ve got filter lovers, filter haters, and compromisers - take your pick and move forward.  But I’d rather not rely solely on a lens hood to protect the front element of the lens.

[TomFrerichs]

Steve Perry did a fun video on this topic about three years ago.  You can see it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

Tom Frerichs

[Brookie]

Tom,
That’s a great video, thanks for posting it! 

I guess I should also mention with reference to my previous post that the protection I am expecting from a clear filter is - protection from scratches, dust, and salt water. It’s not surprising that they offer little protection if the lens is dropped.

[Dave Gurtcheff]

I leave uv filters on all my lenses. 99 % of my work is seascapes, where there is blowing surf, windswept fine sand, and corrosive salt air. During a photo session, and afterwards, I usually have to use lens tissue and optical cleaner on my filters. If you check my web site, you will see how lens unfriendly our environment is. That is my experience, so filters make sense here.
Best regards
Dave in NJ
Www.modernpictorials.com

[Dave Rosser]

I keep the attached picture to show what can happen if you use a (really) cheap UV filter on your lens.  What has happened here is that the light coming through the triangular window has been focused on the sensor, reflected back from this and again been reflected off the back of the UV filter and been recorded as the inverted image.  It is not for nothing that the protective glass fitted to some very expensive Nikon long focus lenses have a meniscus cross section rather than been plane parallel.