UV Filter or no UV filter?

unwantedfocus · May 31, 2022

Probably discussed thousand of times but ill ask again, I buy a lot of gear for people because of the marketplace in Germany. What came to my mind recently every time I bought a camera set and there was a UV filter attached to the lenses, the lens was in superb condition and acted like a protection.

My question should I buy Uv filters to protect my lenses? What are the Pros and cons? Does it affect quality? Any recommendations?

bonus .... also attached a pic of my sexy srt

BrianShaw · May 31, 2022

Asked thousands of times; answered thousands of ways; Started thousands of fights.

Test a roll… part with and part without. Decide for yourself.

Or… flip a coin.

Bronson Dugnutt · May 31, 2022

These days, UV filters are generally pitched as a layer of physical protection for a lens, but can have a positive impact on (film) exposure when there's a lot of UV light bouncing around (e.g. bright landscapes) depending on the UV transmission of your lens.

I usually opt for a light yellow with B&W film in daylight and a 1A or 1B skylight filter for color but generally keep the UV filter attached to lenses that came with them.

MattKing · May 31, 2022

For clarity, a skylight filter is a "light" UV filter.
I do use them. They are easier to keep clean than a recessed front lens element.
When I sold cameras, we often made nearly as much selling the $15 skylight filter as we did selling the competitively priced $300 camera.
You can come to your own conclusions.

Paul Howell · May 31, 2022

I live in the American Southwest low desert haze is an issue. , I normally use a U.V, with a telephoto or normal lens I will stack a UV with a yellow or orange filter when I'm shooting a landscape. With a wide just the UV or contrast filter.

Two23 · May 31, 2022

My experience is the UV filter breaks and scratches the lens. I use the lens hood and keep lens cap on when not taking a photo. Lens cap is best protection.

Kent in SD

Huss · May 31, 2022

The lens on that camera is worth $30. A decent UV filter to protect that lens is $40.

Do the math.

AgX · May 31, 2022

MattKing said:
For clarity, a skylight filter is a "light" UV filter.

The Skylight filter has much more spectral transmission in the UV than the "standard" UV (0) filter, being thus the "lighter" UV filter Filter. However the same time it lacks a bit of transmission in blue/green, giving it a slight pink hue, in contrast to the colourless UV (0). And this again may make one believe the Skylight filter to be also the stronger UV-filter of them both. (I myself got fooled by this.)

xkaes · May 31, 2022

Two23 said:
My experience is the UV filter breaks and scratches the lens. I use the lens hood and keep lens cap on when not taking a photo. Lens cap is best protection.

Kent in SD

My experience is the UV filter breaks and saves the lens.

While a filter MIGHT scratch a lens if smashed, the lens would be toast anyway if the filter wasn't there.

I've also bought a couple of great lenses -- almost for free -- sold as broken/cracked. The only thing cracked was the filter. What a deal.

A UV filter not only protects the lens front from severe injury, it protects the lens from YOU!!!!. Instead of cleaning the lens itself, you clean the replaceable filter. There is no chance of damaging a lens from a bad cleaning job -- which I've seen more times than I can remember.

Kodachromeguy · May 31, 2022

Bronson Dugnutt said:
can have a positive impact on (film) exposure when there's a lot of UV light bouncing around (e.g. bright landscapes) depending on the UV transmission of your lens.

Most camera lenses from the 1950s on filtered uv light by means of glass type, coating, and cement between elements. The magic uv filter did not achieve much if anything. You may want a warming filter of some degree, especially at high altitude, but that is an aesthetic choice.

Just think about how many camera dealers love to sell uv filters. Follow the money.

Sirius Glass · May 31, 2022

I use a Skyllight 1A or UV filter to cut the distance haze and as lens protection from dirt and banging it.

AgX · Jun 1, 2022

Kodachromeguy said:
Most camera lenses from the 1950s on filtered uv light by means of glass type, coating, and cement between elements. The magic uv filter did not achieve much if anything.

Strange enough this is rarely a topic. There was a german test of lenses in the 70's where the UV transmission was a major factor. It turned out that all lenses fall into the two lowest category of UV-transmission (whatever that meant in figures).

BUT from the sparce figures I got a UV (0) filter still moved the steep threshold by 40nm.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 1, 2022

unwantedfocus said:
Probably discussed thousand of times but ill ask again, I buy a lot of gear for people because of the marketplace in Germany. What came to my mind recently every time I bought a camera set and there was a UV filter attached to the lenses, the lens was in superb condition and acted like a protection.

My question should I buy Uv filters to protect my lenses? What are the Pros and cons? Does it affect quality? Any recommendations?

bonus .... also attached a pic of my sexy srt

That's a definite yes! UV filters do not affect image quality and are a reasonable protection against dust dirt and fingerprints; well worth it.

JPD · Jun 1, 2022

A quality UV/Skylight filter shouldn't noticeably affect the image quality except for increasing the risk of flare a little. It's something most users never think of or notice.

When I used an SLR with colour film the lens almost always had a Skylight filter on. In the last couple of decades I've used a Kodak Retina rangefinder or Ercona 6x9 camera for colour, and since I have to remove the filter before closing the camera I've never bothered with using one. (The original Kodak filters for Retina are slim and can be kept on, though).

unwantedfocus · Jun 1, 2022

BrianShaw said:
Asked thousands of times; answered thousands of ways; Started thousands of fights.

Yes I can imagine friendships ended over this.

Huss said:
The lens on that camera is worth $30. A decent UV filter to protect that lens is $40.

Yep that lens isn't worth much, I do own other lenses too.

xkaes said:
A UV filter not only protects the lens front from severe injury, it protects the lens from YOU!!!!. Instead of cleaning the lens itself, you clean the replaceable filter. There is no chance of damaging a lens from a bad cleaning job -- which I've seen more times than I can remember.

I'm probably that guy

Two23 said:
My experience is the UV filter breaks and scratches the lens. I use the lens hood and keep lens cap on when not taking a photo. Lens cap is best protection.

This is interesting too because the hood probably will save the lens if it falls down.

If I would buy a skyfilter can you guys recommend some good ones? thanks of all the answers!

pentaxuser · Jun 1, 2022

Plenty of advices here as there usually is on Photrio "You pays your money and takes your pick"

Reminds me of this:

pentaxuser

Maris · Jun 1, 2022

When I worked in a camera store the standard spiel was "You've just bought a valuable lens and it's worth protecting with a UV filter or would you prefer a Skylight 1A or perhaps a Skylight 1B." Yes, the margin on the filter was much higher than on the lens; good business.
Before the customer left the store they would surely want to buy a rubber lens hood to protect that expensive filter from random bumps and bruises. Nice margin on that too.

Bill Burk · Jun 1, 2022

Perform this demonstration and you will find that the filter does degrade image quality. Unscrew the filter so you can hold it in your hand in front of the lens.

Look through the lens at an illuminated light bulb in an otherwise dark room. Wiggle the filter. You will see the ghosts that degrade image quality.

You will really only need to do this in that kind of situation. Like street photography at night where your scene includes lights like neon signs or movie marquee.

But you should remove the filter when taking pictures like that and keep the filter on at times when it won’t matter.

ic-racer · Jun 1, 2022

Can't help with the lens protection issue, but very nice camera! Looks great in black!

xkaes · Jun 1, 2022

And you can always run simple tests -- for example that night time street light, with & w/o a filter, set up to make it as horrible a disaster as possible. I bet it won't make any difference even with a "$20 High Street store throwaway!" -- as long as you have a good lens shade (which you should be using under any condition).

benveniste · Jun 1, 2022

I can't think of a photographic subject about which so much has been written about something which makes so little difference. So I'll just make 4 quick points:

That SRT-101 and lens are lovely. But I wouldn't worry about the collector value of the lens, simply because it's so common. The camera is
The Multicoating and optical cement Minolta used in that lens already blocks a fair amount of UV.
Daylight balanced C-41 and E-6 films are mostly insensitive to UV light. Most non-chromogenic black and white film is sensitive to UV, with TMax 100 being a notable exception.
The shot below includes a UV filter, a skylight filter, and an A2/81, as a quick and dirty comparison of color casts.

Personally, I only use protective filters in adverse environmental conditions, but I won't say that's the right choice for everyone.

__Brian · Jun 2, 2022

Film is sensitive to UV light, and lenses both new and old pass UV light to varying degrees. Very few lenses are corrected for chromatic aberration in the UV spectrum, they are very expensive. Older lenses tend to pass UV deeper into the spectrum. I have tested new lenses such as the Voigtlander 50mm F1.1 and 7artisans 50mm F1.1 on the Leica M9 with and without UV filters, using the filter cut down significantly on color fringing. On film, UV will soften the focus unless the lens is specially corrected. The Pentax 85mm F4.5 Ultra-Achromatic maintains focus in the UV.

NB23 · Jun 2, 2022

That total satisfactionI get when I SUPER Violently WIPE, with any given shirt I’m wearing, the front element of my super expensive lenses.

unwantedfocus · Jun 2, 2022

Will a original Minolta lens hood absorb the impact if the camera falls down on the lens? So I might then use caps and while shooting outside a lens hood.

gone · Jun 2, 2022

There should be no image issues using a UV filter, but I only used them w/ rangefinder cameras. Too many pictures were taken w/ the lens cap on. All I shoot now is B&W film in SLRs, and nearly always w/ a Y filter and a hood. I suppose that helps w/ any UV issues. Any filter is a possible source of flare, so a hood is a must IMO.

UV Filter or no UV filter?

unwantedfocus

Attachments

BrianShaw

Bronson Dugnutt

MattKing

Moderator

Paul Howell

Two23

Huss

AgX

xkaes

Kodachromeguy

Sirius Glass

AgX

RalphLambrecht

JPD

unwantedfocus

pentaxuser

Maris

Bill Burk

ic-racer

xkaes

benveniste

Attachments

__Brian

NB23

unwantedfocus

gone

UV Filter or no UV filter?

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency