UV Filters

[reub2000]

It seems like a lot of people put a UV filter on the front of their lens to protect it. I've also heard that it cuts out haze. Does a UV filter in front of a lens really do anything?

 

[Nick Zentena]

Clear lens cap

 

[Dave Miller]

Yes, it protects the lens, and reduces haze a little.
It's primary purpose is to reduce the blue cast obtained in colour work from excessive Ultra Violet light.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Nikon have two UV filters. L37, L37C and L39.

The L37 eliminates invisible UV light and haze, but has no effect on visible light. The L37C features Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC) to unfavourable light reflection. The L37(C) eliminates UV light shorter than 370nm in wavelength.

The L39 absorbs that shorter than 390nm. The L39 produces prominent effects in B&W photography.

The L37C can be left on the lens as a lens protector.

That is the instructions on the Nikon filter paper that came with my Nikon filters when I purchased them 25 years ago.

To be honest I tried to see a difference between the L39, L37 and L37C using B&W film I couldn't detect any. I have since relegated them to just run of the mill lens protector.

With B&W, I find I have far more difference using coloured filters, like Yellow, Orange and Red.

Mick.

 

[Lee Shively]

I use them for protection. I stopped using them for a spell but noticed my front elements needed much too frequent cleaning so I'm using them again. When they get scratched, I toss them out and buy another. They make nice clear lens caps, as previously noted.

 

[nicolai]

This is like Mac vs Windows. There are arguments for both using and not using them.

 

[cowanw]

I took a fall on a trip in China the B+W yellow 67mm filter took the hit on the paving stones on its edge and cracked. The zeiss lens was uninjured. May never happen again but if it does there will be a filter on the lens.
Regards
Bill

 

[reub2000]

Well dust and dirt, and minor scratches seem to have little effect on image quality. I protect the front element of my lens using a lens hood.

Can anyone post an example of the filters effect on haze?

 

[Monophoto]

They help the filter manufacturer make money.

 

[wheelygirl]

Hi one and all!
I have used an UVfilter since I had gotten the Minolta. It was simply there on the 50 mm lens and I only noticed it being on there a few months back. That's how much of a "noobie" I am!!
If you care to check out "Ducks in Silhouette" in the Gallery, [my image] I did indeed use the filter. It certainly cuts the reflective glare from the pool's water.

 

[JG Motamedi]

A useful article here: http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Bob Atkins' article that JG Motamedi mentions above is a good one.

I use UV filters to filter UV (see Atkins article to find out which ones are really effective) or when there's an obvious hazard like sea spray or sand or crowds. I don't use a filter otherwise unless there's a photographic reason for doing so. I do use lens shades to shade and protect the lens.

 

[JG Motamedi]

Actually it was David who told me about the article.

I have found that in everyday use UV filters are of questionable value in reducing UV haze, but are quite effective in preventing fingerprints on glass, particularly from inquisitive 2 year-old fingers...

 

[bjorke]

I make the choice per lens. On my Contax G lenses, which have large screw-on metal hoods, I've foregone the UV's.

On my heavy Canon 24-105 L, which has a shallow plastic petal hood and a large exposed lenses element, the UV goes on (a nice one, B+W, to avoid flare)

Flare is the greatest hazard of any UV filter. Any filter at all, actually.

 

[ehparis]

UV and Skylight Filters

It seems like a lot of people put a UV filter on the front of their lens to protect it. I've also heard that it cuts out haze. Does a UV filter in front of a lens really do anything?

It costs money, it introduces higher possibility of flare. It does nothing to protect the lens from breakage (from dropping) that a hood won't do. Why would you put a cheap piece of glass in front of a good lens unless you were interested in degrading picture quality?

There may just be a reason why a filter costs 8X or 10X from a vendor like B+W than the el cheapo kind.

 

[Lee Shively]

"Well dust and dirt, and minor scratches seem to have little effect on image quality. I protect the front element of my lens using a lens hood."

"Why would you put a cheap piece of glass in front of a good lens unless you were interested in degrading picture quality?"

So if dust, dirt and scratches on the lens do not degrade picture quality, why would a piece of optical glass degrade picture quality?

If my life depended on it, I wouldn't be able to come up with a single picture I've made that was degraded because of a UV filter. On the other hand, I can come up with thousands of shots degraded by my own carelessness. Makes the issue of using a UV filter or not pale in comparison.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"Well dust and dirt, and minor scratches seem to have little effect on image quality. I protect the front element of my lens using a lens hood."

"Why would you put a cheap piece of glass in front of a good lens unless you were interested in degrading picture quality?"

So if dust, dirt and scratches on the lens do not degrade picture quality, why would a piece of optical glass degrade picture quality?

If my life depended on it, I wouldn't be able to come up with a single picture I've made that was degraded because of a UV filter. On the other hand, I can come up with thousands of shots degraded by my own carelessness. Makes the issue of using a UV filter or not pale in comparison.

*2

Many times taking photos on the beach or in the mountains, I have cleaned dust off my filters. I have always been glad that it was on the filters which are cheap to replace than on the lens. I would rather have a scratched filter than a scratch in the coating of a lens.

Yes, lenshoods can prevent damage from impact, but not damage to the surface of a lens from dust or branches. These points are observable and provable.

When taking photos of mountains in the distance the UV, Haze or Skylight filters make a difference because of the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These are observable facts. [No, they will not remove smog nor will they improve the composition of a photograph.] Others in this thread have pointed out articles discussing the wavelength cut off of these products, so I will not repeat their technical points.

Frankly, this forum is a techincal forum. Arguments that are completely emotional and devoid of scientific or photographic backup are WOMBATs*.

*WOMBAT = Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time

Steve

 

[Travis Nunn]

The only lens I have a UV filter on is my macro lens. I take lots of pictures of insects and such so mine is used mainly for protection. I've had several Praying Mantids attack my lens, I've had frogs and grasshoppers jump straight into my lens, I've even had a territorial dragonfly attack my lens.

If you get a good quality filter, it won't degrade the shot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The only lens I have a UV filter on is my macro lens. I take lots of pictures of insects and such so mine is used mainly for protection. I've had several Praying Mantids attack my lens, I've had frogs and grasshoppers jump straight into my lens, I've even had a territorial dragonfly attack my lens.

If you get a good quality filter, it won't degrade the shot.

Attacked by insects! Now that is a new one for me!

Very valid points.

Thank you,
Steve

 

[reub2000]

The only lens I have a UV filter on is my macro lens. I take lots of pictures of insects and such so mine is used mainly for protection. I've had several Praying Mantids attack my lens, I've had frogs and grasshoppers jump straight into my lens, I've even had a territorial dragonfly attack my lens.

If you get a good quality filter, it won't degrade the shot.

I've shot with lenses that many specs of dust on the front element. I don't see any diminished quality because of it. The dust blows off with a rocket air blower.

 

[Travis Nunn]

I've shot with lenses that many specs of dust on the front element. I don't see any diminished quality because of it. The dust blows off with a rocket air blower.

I'm not really sure what my previous post has to do with dust on a lens.

 

[Jim Jones]

I quit using protective Leica UV filters on my M2 when they caused occasional ghost images in night photography. I did retire one Summicron due to excessive cleaning in adverse environments. That cost a fraction of the film and printing expenses for images with that lens. It still delivers sharp photos where flare isn't a problem.

 

[MattKing]

Correct me if I am wrong, but filters are a problem when they are of poor quality because filters both transmit and refract light, and therefor can add optical distortion to the lens. Dust and dirt, unless there in great quantity, only cut down on the light transmitted.

Grease, because it can refract light in certain circumstances, can do both.

Matt

 

[reub2000]

I'm not really sure what my previous post has to do with dust on a lens.

Opps, I meant to quote Lee, not you. My mistake.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Correct me if I am wrong, but filters are a problem when they are of poor quality because filters both transmit and refract light, and therefor can add optical distortion to the lens.

Agree. Buy the best filters you can afford.

Dust and dirt, unless there in great quantity, only cut down on the light transmitted.
Grease, because it can refract light in certain circumstances, can do both.
Matt

Dust and grease can affect photographs whether they are on a filter or a lens. I would rather clean a filter and discard it when its coating gets worn then replace a lens when its coating gets warn. YMMV. If you are independently wealthy then this comment may not apply to you.

Steve