xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

For someone asking for advice, you might consider being a bit more hospitable abraham.losa

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Presently I go for clear glass except when I can't find an inexpense version. UV is often less because "they" make a ton more. (Quantity discount in manufacturing means less price.)

Many figure the word "protection" means stopping a bullet. Not so and never truely was intended to do that. An outdoors photographer put out a YouTube video comparing a filter and a weight dropping. What a foolish thought!

Reality now days is that all glass slowly and microscopically degrades everytime you clean it. True that might take 20 years until you notice it, but it does happen. I use a filter so the lens will be as close to brand new for the longest time, then just change a filter when it mildly produces like a frosted lens. Studio people probably know what that is.

For me, it's almost always outdoors, freelancing where dirty things build up alot more than indoor shooters. Again, a filter is my choice that I always use. Well... maybe not on a fisheye lens but that is because of the extreme wide angle where one is not made for it.

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

Some people think it there God given right to get others to do their work instead of running their own search whether on UHH or Google etc. and only then asking for clarification. Unfortunately, there are so many willing to bend over and spoon feed them that they will probably never stop.

But I've ruffled enough feathers today answering generic non-descriptive questions with generic non-descriptive (albeit smart ass) answers.

farnsworth52 Loc: W. Pa.

Having saved an expensive lens from being scratched by using a filter convinced me of it's usefullness. And the great thing about it, they come off in no time, when I think they might degrade a particular shot. And yes it had a hood on it. I was shooting wildlife in a parking lot,and a moron speeding out of the lot kicked up gravel and ruined my filter, but not my lens. The second benefit is not having to clean the front glass as often. It's your money and lens, you ultimately pay for any mistakes.

ELNikkor

I've always used a filter in front of my valuable lenses to protect them from splatter, dust, whacks, scratches, drool etc. The Hoya 1B was my standard back in the film days, but recently, I bought 3 77mm Lenskins for my new Nikon lens. I tested the UV filter both on and off to see how it fared in a variety of shots, including straight at the sun. It did not degrade the image at all. I shudder to see bare glass on the front of my valuable lenses, knowing how delicate that multi-coating must be. I don't ever want to moisten it and drag any kind of cloth over it, so my protecting filters give me a lot of peace of mind.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Funny thing. A pro I talked to many times told me he didn't use a filter. He just sold the old lens to someone else and purchased a new lens.

*(He had the cash flow to do that.)

Silverman Loc: Michigan

I have heard from others that a UV filter is not necessary, a better idea is the proper sized Lens Hood to protect your lens and also is said to prevent "Lens Flare". A better possibly of a Lens filter might be a Polarized Filter for your lens, it is very helpful in any "Water reflection" or "Glass reflection" and also makes the beautiful contrast with the White puffy Clouds and Bright blue sky. There are many varing opinions regarding Lens filters, do your personal research before you decide.

Bipod

It always amazes me that people are happy to shoot a zoom lenses having 20 or 30
surfaces but worry about a thin, flat piece of glass having only 2 surfaces!

Man, is marketing powerful! If UV filters cost $5000, everyone would wish they could
afford to buy one.

A UV filter (or plain glass filter, for that matter) can both hurt and help image quality--
but not by much. The only hurt is a tiny reduction in transmitted light (caused by
specular reflection) -- which can be greatly reduced by buying a coated filter. The
benefits of having a UV filter are considerable--and rarely discussed.

A UV filter is just a thin, flat piece of UV-asborbing glass.

Since it doesn't focus an image, it cannot suffer from any of the five aberrations
of Seidel, or from chromatic aberration. Since the filter's only aperture is its pupil --
very large as apertures go--the amount of diffraction is very small. It's as close to
as it gets to a "perfect lens".

Your camera lens does not contain any perfect elements. It does contain a number
of thick, spherical elements that create aberrations. It has other elements designed to
correct or partially-correct some of these aberrations. But the optical system isn't
completely corrected for all aberrations--that's impossible.

The camera lenses that come closest to "perfect" (diffraction-limited) performance are
long prime focus lenses. Except for their slowness, these are the best performing lenses
in anybody's catalog -- and also the simplest designs. But if you're shooting a zoom or
super wide angle, well, the filter is the least of your optical quality problems. These
designs are all a compromise: the lesser of a bunch of optical evils.

And a camera lens does contain an aperture. At f/11 or narrower, diffraction becomes
significant (on miniature format = "full frame" cameras).

The surfaces in a modern camera lens are mutli-coated. Coatings reduce but do not
not eliminate reflection. The more internal sufaces, the more reflection. And coatings
do absorb some of the transmitted light (and more than glass does).

So an uncoated UV filter costing $10 is optically superior to a $10,000 Nikon or
Canon zoom lens (with lots of surfaces). And $20, you can get a mutli-coated
UV filter that is as close to a perfect optical system as you will find on earth.

The fact that the filter isn't optically flat makes no measurable difference. (But if you
want to buy a 10 nm optical flat filter--go right ahead.)

Since it's thin and only a single element, a UV filter won't cause visible flare nearly
as bad as the front element of the lens. Nor can it cause as much invisible flare and
contrast reduction.

So if you have to have a bright light (e.g., the sun) from outside the angle-of-view
(e.g, the sun) striking your camera, it is better that it fall on a coated filter than directly
on the front element of the lens. Try it, you'll see: lenses flare much worse than
filters do.

Light striking the filter at greater than its critical angle will be totally
reflected and not enter the lens. This is a big benefit.

The front element of your lens is convex. This means that light striking
the sides of the lens more squarely than if it were a flat piece of glass.
So more of the light from outside the angle-of-view will be below
the critical angle and thus be transmitted into the lens, where it will
cause flare and reduce contrast. Again, the filter is a benefit.

It also extends the lens barrel a little bit, like a lens hood. This is a benefit
tht can be quite significant. Outdoors shooting towards the sun, any lens
hood is better than none.

If you use a lens hood over the filter, and the filter is shaded, then
flare is not a problem. The coating only helps by very slightly
increasing the amount of light transmiteed (by a small fraction of a stop).
Coating also absorb a bit of the light transmitted though them.
In that situation, you will not be able to tell the difference beween an
uncoated filter and a coated one -- there may not even be a difference.

Your lens was designed to be used with filters. That is why it has a
threaded filter ring on the front. It is why Nikon and Canon sell filters
intended to be used with their lenses.

Now here's the ironic part: many modern lense use optical cement that
absorbs UV! So you may not need a UV filter to absorb UV. But you
probably should still put one on your lens to protect it-- as generations
of phtographers have done.

Given a coated UV filter from any major manufacturer---
Pros:
* protects lens from damage
* helps keep the filter ring from getting dented
* keeps the front surface of the lens clean (reducing cleaning)
* reduces visible flare
* reduces invisible flare
* may reduce UV and haze
Cons:
* absorbs a unmeasurably small amount of the incident visible light;
* reflects a tiny bit of the incident visible light (called specular reflection).

Install a filter, and you can clean it, not your lens. When the coating
on the filter wears out, throw the filter away and buy another one--
it sure beats throwing your lens away and buying another one!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Just a note to the "inhospitable" and grumpy folks today. Asking question on this is this forum is RESEARCH. Oftentimes when I "Google" or otherwise search questions, phrases or inquiries I frequently find references and links to many online forumes- sometimes this one and other photography types. There are also forums on audio gear, amateur radio, computers, music, power tools, basket weaving, quilting, sewing, stamp collecting and just about anythg you can think of. Photography magazines with Q&A columns are rapidly disappearing so what's wrong with asking questions on online forumes? Even elementary ones!

In this this cases, if you "GOOGLE "Photographic Filters" and you end up on the websites of various manufacturers and retailers via links, nobody's gonna tell you not to use filters- that's what they sell. If you end up on Wikipedia- that will tell you what filter are but there won't be pros and cons and differences of opinion. Sometimes even user manuals for cameras and accessories are TERRIBLE! Little local camera shops where "brotherly" advice used to be dispensed in the past are mostly gone and given way to the big-box dealers.

If you think a question is too basic, redundant or overly discussed elsewhere on the forum you can just ignore it or provide a link to the applicable threads. Why engage in rough stuff?- it's a waste of time! Also newcomers to this site may not know all the ropes as yet and telling someone, in effect, to "buzz off and do your homework" kind thing is indeed inhospitable. It's alright to tell someone that they have a frequently asked question and simply proved a fast answer or a quick link- it takes more time to tell them off! Then the "gang-bangers" join in and the entire thread deteriorates.

abraham.losa Loc: Miami FL

Totally agree💯👍🏻

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Obviously a UV filter will keep the lens' front element clean. Its use for any other purpose is much like wearing a magnet belt or copper bracelet - if you think it helps, it does.

tomcat

You'll get a ton of answers, so I might as well add to the pile. UV is primarily used in haze conditions and will add just a touch of warmth to a bluish temperature and I will switch to one on cloudy days or in the distant mountains. Otherwise, I have clear glass filters and I get the best from either Nikon or B+W. If it's a cheap filter, I "ain't" using it. The better quality filters have a non-glare or non-reflective coating.
And that's my 3 ½ cents' worth.

broncomaniac Loc: Lynchburg, VA

I have two ammo cases full of filters. I use a UV or 1A on every lens I own. I would MUCH rather clean and polish my disposable filter than toss my lens because of a spec of abrasive dust I missed with my blower and brush. But then again, I bought out the filter inventory of a closing camera store and have the convenience of owning a decent filter for every thread size I require.

I selected hama and Hoya filters (including the Alpha MC series) for personal use and resold the rest. I'm very happy with my image quality and wouldn't consider removing the filters for any of my photography. I want my lenses as pristine as the day of purchase. I also have many CPLs from the buyout, but that's a whole other topic unto itself.

I would add that I also employ lens hoods for each lens that accepts them.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I don’t think this is black and white by any means. Some Nikon lenses are “weather reaistant” (whatever that means), and the same is true of some Canons. Fuji at least adds a “WR” suffix to their lenses so you’ll know which are which. I don’t think you can accurately say that Nikons are either more or less resistant than Canons, with or without a filter. Personally, since I’m not a paid pro and don’t need to subject my lenses to abuse, I don’t take mine out in the rain, either with or without a filter.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

I see a lot of responses on protecting the surface of the lens... Having shot on the auto race circuit for over 10 years as well as doing photography at night, my only “negative” with either skyline or UB is reflections and occasional glare