UV Filter question

[duraace]

Is there ever a time when you should NOT have a UV filter on the lens, excepting of course when you want to use some other filter?

[DarkPenguin]

Um, that time would be pretty much all the time.  Unless it is raining in which case you might want the UV filter on to try to keep water out of the lens.

UV filters just tend to increase flare.  Use a hood for protection.

[Panopeeper]

Is there ever a time when you should NOT have a UV filter on the lens, excepting of course when you want to use some other filter?

Yes: when you are using a very good lens and want to create sharp images with the most fine details possible with that lens.

The question should be turned around: when to use a UV filter?

The role of the UV filter with modern cameras and lenses is the physical protection of the front lens element. However, in most cases the lens hood is more suitable for that. The UV filter may be necessary, when

- using an old lens, which does not have UV filtering coating (the coating of modern lenses does filter UV)

- shooting at a location, where salty air/sand is carried by the wind

[duraace]

Good to know.  Thanks.  I was sold on getting a filter kit, which also has a circular polarizer and a "warm polarizer".  Please don't tell me they too have no use on a modern high end lens (Nikon - AF 85/1.4D IF ) :-)   Just kidding.  Be brutally frank.

[DarkPenguin]

With digital you can fake the "warm" aspect of the warm polarizer.  You can also fake the darkening of the sky effect, too.  But you can't fake its ability to remove reflections which is really the key part of a polarizer.  They also make nice ND filters in a pinch.

[NikoJorj]

Is there ever a time when you should NOT have a UV filter on the lens, excepting of course when you want to use some other filter?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whenever you got a light source (or reflection) near or in the image field, let's say in front of you, any filter will significantly worsen the ghosting and flare.
That happens statistically half of the time, doesn't it?

As said, the only interest of a polarizer filter, when shooting digitally, is reducing vitrous reflection (on glass or water).
An UV filter will, optically, make nothing but alter your picture as sensors are not that sensitive to UV. Of course, it may be handy in a few extreme situations, such as shooting a motocross race...

[mahleu]

Whenever I shoot at night I take off my filters. They increase flare hugely when shooting towards point sources of light.

[duraace]

It's looking like the only filter of use after reading the messages here, is the circular polarizing filter as a sort of ND filter.  I took one shot with it resulting in a noticeable dramatic effect, so will continue to keep in find.

[DarkPenguin]

The warming one can be nice, too.  It is just that you don't NEED it.  If you shoot Jpeg it is probably more interesting.

[Colorado David]

I shoot only raw, but from years of shooting film, I would rather get it right in the camera than fix it in post.  I don't use warming filters anymore since I can easily change color temp, but I do still use ND Grads.  It's just so much easier to get the exposure right in the field.  To each his own.  I've never seen the value of a layer of cheap glass to protect a lens element when a hood will do as well in most cases.

[kshuler]

Whenever you got a light source (or reflection) near or in the image field, let's say in front of you, any filter will significantly worsen the ghosting and flare.
That happens statistically half of the time, doesn't it?

As said, the only interest of a polarizer filter, when shooting digitally, is reducing vitrous reflection (on glass or water).
An UV filter will, optically, make nothing but alter your picture as sensors are not that sensitive to UV. Of course, it may be handy in a few extreme situations, such as shooting a motocross race...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, yes and no, I think.  There is no doubt that all filters will increase SOME, but not necessarily significantly.  If you look at [a href=\"http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387]http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387[/url] they did tests with hoya s-hmc filters and it appears there was a SMALL increase in flaring from no filter at all.  The tiffen filter they had completely ruined the pictures.  Furthermore, if you look at http://www.optyczne.pl/5.1-Inne_testy-Test_filtrów_UV.html they did some nice tests of multiple filters.  Unfortunately, it is in Polish, but the pictures and graphs are easy to understand.  You will note that some of the filters, the multicoated ones, made very little difference in pictures, even tests of lights during nighttime, a very rigorous test indeed.

Obviously, if you want NO increase in flare, then it is best to remove the UV filter.  However, if you choose not to, and have a good filter, it is unlikely to make a huge impact in your image quality.

Klaus
--
http://bokehtests.com/Site/About_Bokeh.html