In another photography forum I was advised to take the uv filters off.

"UV filters (on digital) are for hazardous duty use only. Leave them off unless strictly necessary. Your sensor has a UV filter bonded to it.

UV filter effects: http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/1054387
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html "

What are your thoughts?

Andres

I use to use them and never noticed any negative effects (However, I never did any testing like in the links you provided either) My reasoning was protection. I don't use them anymore mainly because I don't need the extra hassle. I consider a lens hood as adequate protection.

I don't use UV filters except in hostile conditions like sand, sea spray or heavy rain. Lens hoods offer better protection when you hit something or drop your camera.

I try to keep one on all the time. It only takes a moment for something/someone to bump the end of your lens. The only time I take mine off is at night to minimise flare.

I use a clear (Nikon) filter on my Canon glass whenever the weather or environmental conditions warrant it. I don't notice any IQ drop, but don't keep them on all the time just in case.

I always have one on as it is much more simple - and safe - to wipe/brush a Nikon filter than to mess with the surface of a lens. I don´t believe there is any noticeable difference in image quality, at least, not that I can see. On inspection of filters, it isn´t unusual to find that they eventually pick up marks and deposits that do not come off. Think if it had been your lens´s surface instead.

Rob C

Hi,

I agree in principle, UV-filters are not needed. I do have a UV-filters on, for protection. i feel easier about cleaning a filter then a lens.

I have not seen any adverse effects but sure there are some. Don't forget that the lens already has something like twenty air/glass interfaces you are just adding two more. The UV-filter is parallell to the sensor this may be a conributing factor to some problems

Best regards
Erik

Not sure how you figure this one: it´s light coming out BEHIND the lens that has a need to be more to the perpendicular...

Rob C

As others have stated, in principal I believe the UV should be off for exposures. I have from time to time taken it off for shots, but I never ever really think about it.

However, I have 3 times in my life done the "Happy Dance" something like the dance at the end of the movie named, Evan Almighty.

Leica SL w 90mm lens hit a metal door frame so hard it caused the filter ring to crimp in - Do the Happy Dance and throw out the filter.

Nikon F2 w 80 - 200 zoom, camera came off sholder while climbing and dashed on the rocks, scraping the filter and rendering unusable. Do the Happy Dance and throw out the filter.

Nikon D100 w (forget lens) mud slinged up from jeep. Do the Happy Dance and take off the filter, actually it was not too happy of a dance, I got mud on me too.

Lee

OK,

We have two potentially reflective surfaces, it could be feasible that light bounces back from the sensor, bounces back again from UV filter and so on. The lenses have a curved surface so multiple bounces of light may be less probable for internal lenses.

Thanks guys, I have always kept in on, I did not know that everybody was taking them on when shooting. Here is the photo that needs to be straighten but I guess I messed up the light bulbs a bit because of the uv filter? That is how the other photographer find out I had it on.

Off unless we're talking hazardous duty. The cost of decent filters isn't that far off of a lens repair.

They use Tiffen and Hoya filters.

Cheap filters, one should never use.

Have you ever put a Tiffen on a white sheet of paper? That yellowish smear.

Wouldn't want that in front of my lens.

A really good filter, like a B + W is clear and of high optical quality. And if its multicoated, you have almost no loss of light and reflections.


The test set-up with desk lamps and cheap filters is a joke.

Have they measured the angle of light in their "flare test"? How directional is the light from a desk lamp? Can they repeat the exact same angle? I really don't bother with that kind of weirdo tests any more.

If science would work that way, we'd all be dead.

As for me, I always have an UV filter on my lens.

For example, to keep UV and haze at bay.

And to protect, of course, also from dust, which my particular lens needs.


PS: some lenses, like the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS suck in dust if the front element is not covered by a filter.

Please give me the address of your repair shop.

They repair a lens for 77$?

Lens hood is a good one!

The reason one doesn't buy extended warranties is that the collective savings will pay for any individual repair. If everything breaks then that strategy fails.

Same concept applies.

BTW, how many filters have you destroyed?

I've always used UV filters for lens protection and when I purchased my first digital camera I asked about a UV filter. This was not at a pro store like B&H but merely an amateur one and he showed me 3 filters. The most expensive one was made for digital with some sort of non glare/reflective coating on the inside of the filter.

It was somewhere around $100 so I opted for one at around $55.

Has anyone seen or used the supposed "digital" one and is it truly a better filter.

Thanks,

Michael

Sounds like you were being served up a heapin' helpin' of salesman-BS.

Light in front of a filter is just, ah, light in front of a filter, regardless of what happens to the photons after they traverse the rear lens element.

I keep filters on all my lenses. I've used nothing but B+W filters. I can't tell any difference with them on vs. with them off, in a variety of lighting conditions. Just my personal ad hoc testing. I make no scientific claims.

I do know that I've destroyed two filters--one from a near-freak incident (struck by flying rock), the other from blowing sand (where most of us would have agreed on the need for a filter, regardless of our "normal" practice.) So I'm a believer.

I doubt Nikon or Contax would give me a new front lens element for $77!

Yeah, I've lost one. In conditions where I felt the need to put the filter on. I've also had flare issues with filters.

The hood has saved many a lens, however.

No doubt. I keep one of those on at all times, too.

However, I don't fully trust my Nikon or Contax lens hoods. The Nikon hoods are plastic; and the Contax's hoods are mated to their lenses by a flimsy plastic bayonet ring, itself attached to the sturdy aluminum hood by three absurdly tiny screws. I've already popped the screwheads thru the ring and/or broken the ring at least three times with seemingly minor impacts, like bumping into someone's arm or a doorframe as I passed through. Frustrating.

Try finding Contax hoods, or god forbid, the little rings themselves. Shoulda stocked up two years ago when I last bought some from Kyocera....

Exactly my experience.

B + W are of such great quality, that I want to see that BS test that proves it makes a difference on/off.

Plus: for certain lenses it is mandatory to have an UV filter on, or they suck in dust.

I'm no expert, but I read somewhere that fluorescence was used to whiten some materials like paper and some fabrics which are somewhat yellowish. Some aditives can absorb UV light and reflect it as blue light, which mixed with the natural yellow tone gives a more luminous white. So, if you put a UV filter on a sheet of paper shouldn't it always give a more yellowish tone?

By the way, I don't use UV filters except in extreme conditions.

I've wondered the same thing about prints put under uv glass.

As an aside there was a long UV filter thread at DPreview. Thom Hogan's thots on the subject (well, not all of them) http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29150755