Image quality loss due to UV Filters?

[Odot]

I know they say that with digital you have some loss in some capacity but i wonder, does this apply to shooting film? I just want something to protect my lens, thats all haha

 

[BrianShaw]

If you read around the web you’ll see a lot of folks saying that theoretically it must make a difference and a lot of folks saying that they’ve never seen a difference.

Me... I’ve never seen a difference but understand how it might theoretically make a difference.

 

[pentaxuser]

In a situation where you can ensure that your camera is safe, take one picture with the UV and an identical picture without it. Check if there is any difference. I doubt if there will be but if there is then only you can judge is whether you can afford to risk the camera without a protecting filter.

pentaxuser

 

[Odot]

In a situation where you can ensure that your camera is safe, take one picture with the UV and an identical picture without it. Check if there is any difference. I doubt if there will be but if there is then only you can judge is whether you can afford to risk the camera without a protecting filter.

pentaxuser

i actually wanted to avoid buying a filter and see if anyone has actual expoerience. I mean i could aslo get a lens hood for protection but the thing about the UV filter really interested me

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have never notice a loss in image quality, rather a reduction in haze and slight warming of color slides and prints. Bu then I only have three score years experience.

 

[voceumana]

If you are shooting under windy (because there is always some particulate matter in the air), salty, or sandy circumstances it make sense to add a filter to protect the lens from physical damage. Far cheaper to replace a filter than the lens itself.

If you are going to add a filter for protection, then get a good, multi-coated filter so it doesn't degrade the image. And, of course, it makes sense to add a UV filter any place where the UV light is higher than average, such as at altitude. The extra 2 air-to-glass surfaces will add some potential for flare, so some degradation is possible, but with multi-coated filters it's likely to be negligible and certainly a lens hood can help keep that to a minimum as well.

The issue is, can you afford to accept the cost of replacing the lens or camera if there is damage--if you can risk it, then you can go without. Generally, I've not used them, but when I have, I haven't noticed any problems.

 

[Svenedin]

Filters are one thing but you mention a lens hood too. That’s not so much about protection but reducing lens flare although when I’m hiking/scrambling in the mountains a lens hood does protect against collisions with rocks. I usually have a filter on the lens at all times. Sometimes for creative reasons (yellow etc with B&W) but also to protect the lens from dirt (especially the fragile coating). I’ve never really noticed a big difference with/without a UV except haze reduction especially at high altitudes.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

UV filters are harmless, apart from cutting through haze at higher altitudes, and today they are uniformly very high quality and a worthwhile investment.

If you have a prized $5,000 highly corrected lens, it is just about a rule that you do not put a cheap $5.00 Chinese-made filter on the front of it, whether it is UV, POL, warming/cooling, R, Y, G or B, but the best you can afford. There are some people out there using Zeiss Movar lenses with $740 circular polarisers on the front: they're not mad, just astute!

In normal circumstances a filter will increase by a small amount the risk of off-axis ghosting and flare, but then this is considerably reduced by those filters with multiple layers of coating both front and rear (e.g. Hoya, B+W, Kenko Zeta). Lenses with ED, APO or aspheric front elements require special attention; apart from their physical design that often limits clearance for a filter, the addition ofa filter could well degrade the optical performance the glass provides.

A very high quality glass filter (UV(0) or Skylight 1B, a slightly pink filter) will provide some protection from a direct impact on the lens, including along the edges; it is much cheaper to replace a filter than a repair or replace a lens! A lens hood is not an afterthought but actually a very useful accessory that can further reduce the incidence of ghosting and flare when a filter is used.

 

[MattKing]

here are some people out there using Zeiss Movar lenses with $740 circular polarisers on the front: they're not mad, just astute!

Well, maybe just a little bit mad, all in all.

 

[Jim Jones]

In the days of uncoated filters, they definitely could cause image problems, especially when the subject included bright lights. I rarely keep a UV filter on a lens. As a result, over 65 Years of using top quality cameras, I've retired two favorite lenses due to hasty cleaning in the field which wouldn't have happened had I used filters.

 

[John Koehrer]

I'm with brianshaw post #2.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hood doesn't protect from dust, sand and else blow. UV filter was made specifically for film. If you think it will do something wrong on film, get clean one. They make them now. Clean protective filter.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I know they say that with digital you have some loss in some capacity but i wonder, does this apply to shooting film? I just want something to protect my lens, thats all haha

there is absolutely no optical quality loss due to UV filters; the opposite might be the case(cutting through haze) but, they also offer little impact protection for the lens; actually may make it worse(scratching through broken glass).However, they offer protection against finger prints, water droplets and dust for the front lens element, including the resulting cleaning marks. I keep a UV filter permanently on every lens.It's much easier to cleaner replace a filter then the lens.

 

[Arklatexian]

I know they say that with digital you have some loss in some capacity but i wonder, does this apply to shooting film? I just want something to protect my lens, thats all haha

If this worries you, take the filter off, take the picture, then put it back on. I try to be so careful with my cameras that I don't need a "safety" filter, using only filters for B&W film photography, when needed. .....Regards!

 

[jim10219]

I use lens caps for protection and UV filters for filtering UV light. I don’t even think about removing the lens cap. It’s habit. I pull up the camera and remove the cap in the same motion. A lens cap also solves the problem of fingerprints, dust and debris. UV filters don’t fix those problems, they just give you another two layers of glass (front and back) to mess with.

That being said, if your UV filter is degrading your image quality, you’ve got a bad UV filter. I’ve even used generic branded cheap ones and tested them on USAF resolution charts and haven’t seen any difference. Now flare is a concern, especially with uncoated filters. But that’s what hoods are good at.

I never understood why people use UV filters with digital cameras. They have UV filters built into the camera. Some people actually pay good money to have them removed so they can take UV photos.

 

[AgX]

In cases of ghost images, or situations of these to expect, I would give it a try without a filter.
Or try a "ghostless" filter with curved glass pane. I do not remember them being discussed at Apug. They are scarce anyway, I only came across one sample so far.

 

[GLS]

I don't bother with protective filters on any of my lenses, as a) I always use lens hoods, and b) if something were to break the filter it would almost certainly scratch the front element anyway from broken glass etc. If I were going to shoot in certain locations with risk of blowing grit, salt water spray etc then I would consider it, but for general use I don't see the need.

 

[Vincent Peri]

I've been in 35mm SLR film photography off and on since 1974, and I've always had a UV filter on every one of my lenses. I haven't seen any image degradation due to the filters being on the lenses. I did keep a lot of fingerprints, dust and water droplets off my lenses, however.

 

[Huub]

Well, when i still did landscape photography with a 35mm system I could clearly see a difference when shooting into the sun with a 20mm lens. The nasty flare and refelectiosn disappeared when i took off the filter. And that was with an expensive B+W filter.

 

[Alan Gales]

I shot a Contax 35mm camera with Zeiss lenses for many years. I used Contax UV filters on the lenses and I never noticed a difference. I completely agree with Brian's post #2.

To add to this. When I sold my Zeiss lenses on eBay a few years ago to fund my large format gear, I got top dollar for those lenses. The coatings were perfect. In fact, one of the buyers contacted me to ask how to keep them that way. I told him that the less you clean a lens the less chance you have of scratching the coating. By keeping a UV or clear filter on the lens you just clean the filter instead of the lens all the time.

 

[Svenedin]

Well, when i still did landscape photography with a 35mm system I could clearly see a difference when shooting into the sun with a 20mm lens. The nasty flare and refelectiosn disappeared when i took off the filter. And that was with an expensive B+W filter.

I don’t dispute your experience but a) most people won’t have a 20mm lens let alone use one or b) be taking pictures directly into the sun.

 

[Bill Burk]

OK, don't take any pictures at night of a movie theatre marquis. That is where ghost images are known to appear due to filter.

I've got a Ghostless 49mm UV Pentax filter which does not have this issue. But flat filters do create ghost images.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I don’t dispute your experience but a) most people won’t have a 20mm lens let alone use one or b) be taking pictures directly into the sun.

Goodness me, that is remiss: 20s are everywhere. So too are 16, 17, 21 and 24mm...
I use a 20mm, with a HOYA HD CIR-POL or B+W KR1.5 (skylight). This lens is a simple, versatile Canon EF 20mm bought 27 years ago and no matter how hard I try it is darned near impossible to introduce any light-induced flaw.

There's also a 17-40mm L-series zoom often shooting in strong angular light (found here in New Zealand, bathed in a southern temperate glare between days of rain and gloom), again with a slim B+W KSM Cir POL or KR1.5 filter. It's very, very infrequent to experience flare (especially) with this lens. There is a bit of flare with my SMC Pentax 67 90mm but not the uber-fancy 75mm f2.8AL. Horses for courses..., you might get appalling flare, ghosting and misc. aberrations shooting with cheap, ancient lenses no matter what sort of filter you put on. If that's what rows your boat, go for it.

Something to remember: irrespective of the filter, it needs to be understood that flare and ghosting can be, and often is used, creatively in photography. It is a skill knowing when it is useful or when it needs to be avoided. I don't sit in one camp but freely move between the two.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you don't believe filters cause any image quality issue, unscrew it so you can hold it in front of the lens (of an SLR)... and wiggle it around.

What you see move is what the filter causes.

Granted, in many cases it's nothing. But in many cases you will see it. And it's a real obvious image degradation that you can immediately know came from the filter.

 

[GLS]

Goodness me, that is remiss: 20s are everywhere. So too are 16, 17, 21 and 24mm...

So are 14mm lenses.

I have a Zeiss 21mm Distagon which I use often. The coatings on it are so insanely good though that it's all but impossible to make it flare.