tdekany Loc: Oregon

GMO foods are healthy? Wow! I’d like to sell you a bridge at a good price. Let me know.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Fuji's also lack fixed flashes, but have this tiny little flash that does just what you described: fills in the shadows.

If you have to photograph newsprint to show an effect from filters,..... Thanks but my regular photos with a filter on the lens are sharp as anything even under 200% magnification. If I have to enlarge newsprint 20x in order to discern a difference the filter makes, it is a difference not worth mentioning nor can it be seen by human eyes!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Under ideal lighting conditions, there will be very little difference between images shot with or without a high quality, multi-coated filter. Especially if other reasonable precautions are taken, such as using a good fitted lens hood to protect the filter from oblique light. (Good fitted lens hoods and lens caps both do a far better job "protecting" lenses, too.)

HOWEVER, under more extreme lighting even an excellent filter can cause issues. For example, directly shooting a sunset or sunrise with the bright sun within the image, you should remove any and all filters.

But possibly more to the point, with today's cameras and lenses the UV filter serves virtually no purpose at all. Digital imaging sees very little to no benefit from filtering out UV light (the way film did, because it tended to be overly sensitive to UV, causing a bluish cast to scenes). A thin piece of glass provides very little physical protection, too. In fact, a broken filter might even do damage that could have been avoided. And modern lenses are a lot tougher than most people think.

The problem is, sales people are only too happy to sell you things you don't really need or should be really low priority. There's also a misunderstanding of UV filters (and similar Sky, 81A warming, etc.) that a lot of experienced photographers used back in the days of film... That was because of film's over-sensitivity to UV light, generally NOT to physically "protect" the lenses, as many have assumed (even though the glass in vintage lenses and the coatings used on them were a lot more susceptible to damage).

Plus, people who use UV filters "all the time" today generally don't make comparisons. They often screw them on their lenses rather permanently and never shoot without... let alone look at images with and without filters side-by-side. A perfect example was the earlier forum post you mention.... where someone was concerned about the lack of contrast and saturation they were seeing with one of their lenses. He or she put a filter on it and never really made any comparisons, until noticing that another recently purchased lens without a filter seemed to render images with so much more "pop". Even then, it didn't occur to him (or her) that the filter might be the culprit. But when someone finally asked about it and the lens was tested without the filter... "Boom!" Problem solved! As much difference as we saw in the image examples provided in that thread, I suspect the filter in question might have been lower quality, uncoated or single coated. But even "the best" are going to cost a little bit of IQ all the time.... and can cost considerably more in extreme situations.

I've seen that sort of thing time after time.... For example, a lot of users of the Canon EF 100-400mm L lens (original push-pull version) were stunned to learn how much sharper their lens was after they removed the "protection filter" from it, that they though it needed and installed from new. That particular lens simply doesn't "play well" with filters.... even the highest quality, multi-coated onse cause it to "go soft". (I don't know if the 100-400mm Mark II version does the same.... I've never fitted mine with any filter, in the two years I've been using it. I'll have to do a test some day.)

It doesn't help that users are very quick to defend their purchase and use of a UV filter by citing supposed "lenses saved", with no real proof that the filter did anything other than break. To truly prove it one way or another would mean buying multiple copies of many different types of lenses, fitting half of them with filters and half without, then putting them aall through a series of rigourous, destructive tests to see if on average there's any improvement in survival likely related to using the filter as "protection". No one has ever undertaken such an extensive test and likely no one ever will.

But at least some testing has been done. It might not be exahustively definitive, but can at least help. Watch and judge for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

(Note that in at least one case a sheet of plain paper held up better than a filter did!)

All that said... Yeah, I've got high quality, multi-coated UV filters available for use on most of my lenses. They're stored separately in my camera bag and are among my least-used accessories. I only get em out and install them when shooting in a situation where they actually might serve a purpose (i.e., a sandstorm.... or at the beach... or, occasionally, a scene with bluish haze where I'm not using a C-Pol for one reason or another). Because they spend probably 99.98% of the time unused and stowed in my bag, UV filters were among my lowest priority purchases. In comparison, quality circular polarizing filters were a MUCH higher priority.... serving many more purposes and on my lenses a lot more often! I probably use a C-Pol for 10 or 15% of shots overall.... maybe 50 or 60% of scenic shots, in particular. They're also useful for automotive, other products and even portraiture at times.

In the end, I've spent a lot on high quality lenses and cameras to make the best images possible. Those lenses don't NEED protection and the LAST thing I'm going to do is mindlessly stick anything between my lenses' optics and the subject I'm trying to capture in an image, as best I can.

P.S. Your filter is B+W brand (not B&W). German-made and the XS-Pro series is their very top of the line.... They use excellent Schott glass, 16-layer "Nano" multi-coatings that are a bit more scratch resistant and easier to clean than some, in a slim brass frame that's less likely to get stuck than aluminum. It is probably either an "010M" (which is what they call their "UV") or a "Clear" protective only filter. This high quality filter will minimize risk of image degradation in all but the most severe lighting conditions. If it's a UV, it also might occasionally serve to slightly reduce a bluish haze in a scene (Clear protective won't).

FstopBill Loc: Anderson, CA

For the love of photography, I opened a camera store. One of the things I learned was that we had to sell stuff to stay in business and there was no profit in selling just a camera. So we sold filters...a UV or Skylight with every lens. Lens protection?...yeah, I suppose, but I never put them on my own gear. Something else to buy, another surface to keep clean. Never broke a lens either.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The photos submitted appear to be under overcast skys (no real distinct shadows). There will be a lot less UV coming through any clouds. Next, digital sensors are much less sensitive to UV than film. And this picture appears to be shot at an altitude of less than 5000'. The need for a UV filter in this situation, other than personal choice for lens protection, is very, very small. As E.L. Shapiro mention, it will affect your image, but more than likely is not noticeable under normal viewing conditions.

Once one gets into the mountains (>5000') out here in Colorado, then a UV filter may actually start making a slight difference. Arc welding light would be another good situation for a UV filter. These types of situations are when one may want a UV filter whether or not it affects the overall image quality from an aberration point of view (especially since that is very small).

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Yes as a biologist, a Physician, and a dog breeder for over 40 years, I am in a position to know something about genetics. All the horror stories about genetic modification are a lot of nonsense. Genes are genes, and healthy plants are healthy plants, and the nutrients they contain are chemically the same regardless of the genetic makeup of the plant. We have been modifying the genetic makeup of plants for several millennia. Every crop we grow has been modified from its wild form by selective breeding and species crossing over many centuries. It is only lately we can do it a bit more quickly by laboratory techniques.

Dunbar Loc: Boston, MA

I just completed 4 night courses at the New England School of Photography in Boston, MA. I always put UV filters on as a protection to my lenses but when shooting with a digital camera they feel that they do not add to the pictures and recommend a solid glass filter. I use a Sony/ProMaster or Nikon Glass Filter as protection only. I had dropped my 70-200L lens while climbing to get a better shot and the sound of the lens hitting the ground was earth shattering. My filter saved all the glass but Canon had to make some slight adjustments.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Yes, I want to see these photos that are so precise and detailed that they would have suffered had they been shot with a clear, good quality thin glass filter protecting the lens. The purists note that they have professional cameras and professional lenses and will not corrupt that quality with a filter. I don't have professional grade anything, but I do have filters on my lenses and my shots are sharp and detailed at very close inspection and high magnification, so I am skeptical about the claims of the "purists". Better to concentrate on taking good photos, well composed, interesting and properly exposed, with a protected lens!

Dunbar Loc: Boston, MA

As a retired Professional Photogragher that used film, my changeover to DSLR required a different way of thinking. I just completed 4 night courses at the New England School of Photography in Boston, MA. I always put UV filters on as a protection to my lenses but when shooting with a digital camera they feel that they do not add to the pictures and recommend a solid glass filter. I use a Sony/ProMaster or Nikon Glass Filter as protection only. I had dropped my 70-200L lens while climbing to get a better shot and the sound of the lens hitting the ground was earth shattering. My filter saved all the glass but Canon had to make some slight adjustments.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

CatMarley, I agree with you that worrying about other aspects of photography are much more important than worrying whether or not to protect the lense with a filter. Again, it comes down to where the technical world says it it exist (and it does), but in the real world, from a proper viewing distance, one will never see it. It really comes down to personal preference of filter / no filter. It becomes might hard to fault someone for their personal preference as you well know.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

UV filters are good to have. Especially if your Tripod takes a nose dive on concrete with your expensive lens attached to your camera. Most UV protection filter users, have had no complaints about degradation of image quality. At least in my experience. And from others I know. I have two protective Tiffen Clear UV Filters of different sizes. But, it is only a buffer, because lens glass is generally much harder than the protective UV filter glass. The filter glass will break first before your lens glass is damaged or scraped.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Geez. Talk about off topic with some of the comments. After everything is said and done, I found out that some extra filters that I have are actually pretty good. I didn't think so until I checked out a couple of links. And, I had doubts about my Heliopan circular polarizer. Again, because of the comments here and technical links, I found out that it is one of the highest rated. So, I'm not looking to replace it. So, thank you all. BTW, I do use B&W XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 Filters to protect all of my lenses.

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

Two points.
1) Canon specify using a filter on the L series lenses to complete the water sealing of a mounted lens.
2) Although I only use a filter when necessary to protect the lens its quite possible to get the front element of a lens scratched if the filter 'protecting' it breaks. I know from bitter experience.

clickalot Loc: Chicago area

My opinion is there is no perfect glass element or filter. Every glass element, either internal to the lens or as an added filter, has some level of imperfection that tends to degrade image quality. With this as a viewpoint, I like low element count prime lenses. I shoot Nikon and there are some older Nikon prime lenses that produce excellent IQ even on modern DLSRs.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

My understanding is that adding any glass element degrades the images to some degree. The question is can you see the difference? Probably not.