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

Strong opinions are not necessary when you simply understand the facts about UV filters. When you understand the theory and a little history, you can make wise decisions depending on what kind of work you are doing and how any filter usage will influence the results.

The first thing to consider is the original usage of theses filters, besides physical lens protection against damage, dirt, and smudging. It goes back to the film era where color films were especially sensitive to ultraviolet light especially on overcast days or in open shade, out of doors, resulting in a bluish cast in the image. This was very common in transparency films that were not mainly intended for making prints in that color correction in printing was not as easily practicable as in printing color negatives. Most film manufacturers recommend the use of a so-called skylight filter (designated as Skylight 1-A) or an ultraviolet absorbing filter such as the UV-16. Color photographs made with electronic flash oftentimes exhibited a similar bluish, cyan or generall "cold" cast due to the relatively high UV content of electronic flashlight, especially prevalent in some higher-powered flash gear. Some film data recommend the use of the UV-16 or similar filters and others recommend a warming filter such as the 81-A. Wedding photographers routinely used theses filters for formal portraits because some "super-white" bridal gowns and veils incorporated ultraviolet brighteners in their fabrics which fluoresced under electronic flash illumination and would reproduce is a rather rich blue or almost purplish hue which could be precluded by the use of a UV filter on the lens and a UV absorbent Plexigalss filter on the flash equipment. Digital sensors simply do not react to UV ligh in these manners, at least I have never encountered any of these issues since going digital.

You mention "chromatic aberration". A far as I know, that is an intrinsic shortcoming in some lenses whereby light of all parts of the spectrum can not focus on the same plane. I don't think that any filter can correct for that nor I do think a good quality filter of any kind can introduce this defect to a properly designed lens.

The so-called controversy about UV or other filter use for lens protection arises in that the addition of any more glass surfaces to the light path has the potential of causing flare or other kinds of image degradation. Theoretically, ANYTHING you place in front of the lens does have that potential but it may not be significant enough to become noticeable at moderate degrees of image enlargement. Flare is caused by extraneous light striking the lens or the filter thus causing internal reflections within the elements and structure, thus causing loss of contrast and if it is severe enough, it can obliterate or degrade the entire image. Coated lenses and properly coated filters can minimize this problem but it is wise to use a good lens shade and beware of serious flair potential in strongly back or side- lighted scenes or subjects.

In my studio and commercial work I seldom use a protectional filter in that there is little potential for lens damage or smudging, however, in food photography where the might be steam or splatter, and on industrial sites where there might be airborne debris, sawdust, filings, and harmful vapors, I do use a protection filter. On certain jobs where I know, there is going to be a great deal of enlargement lie billboard display, photomurals, and Jumbotron displays, I tend to avoid the filters unless very necessary.

Obviously, you don't want to degrade the performance your expensive high-quality lenses with poorly crafted filters. If you use UV protection filters, polarizers or colored filters for monochrome work, make sure to acquire the best filters you can afford. Make certain they are coated and made of high-quality optical glass. Avoid stacking filters- the are best utilized one at a time.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"...researching my Lumix Prime, I stumbled across this comment from Amadou Diallo...."

I have no idea who Amadou is. But, I shoot Panasonic gear. I had been frustrated with my long Lumix telephoto/zoom. When I removed the UV filter I had put on for "protection" my happiness with results improved considerably.

I now rely on eht lens hood for "protection" and carry the UV filter in my bag in case of severe conditions like salt spray.

Bill P

I recently saw a post on an internet forum, maybe this one, maybe Mike Johnston,from a guy that saw a photo of Joel Sartore with his camera, which clearly had a UV filter attached. He found a way to contact Joel, and he said that he frequently shot with one on his lenses. I responded to the anti filter guy thus: Joel Sartore is a National Geographic photographer of many years. He keeps a filter on his lens. You are not a National Geographic photographer, and you are against it. You should shut up.

Pistnbroke Loc: UK

If you have a long lens for birds don't use one ..I had 700 images "blurred " just by fitting a UV filter,
OK if you shooting weddings and it might get splashed with champagne

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I have used UV or clear protection filters for years. In normal photography, even using inexpensive filters on tele lenses, where image degradation would be the worst, and viewing at 100%, I have yet to find one image where it is possible to tell when the filter is on and when it is off. There is a caveat, which is when you are shooting directly into bright light sources. In that case, you might find a small extra amount of flare around the source, or an extra light reflection when shooting into the sun or a very bright, near-point source of light. But in 99% of cases, the filter, if kept clean, will NOT affect the image in any perceptible way. In addition, it is a valuable source of protection for your front element. Why anyone would risk their front element is beyond my understanding.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - I understand - but there are cheapo filters about - would you do your shooting through the end of a milk bottle? I'm sure you wouldn't. There are bods who don't accept that you get what you pay for.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I never use a UV filter. And I have NEVER had any chromatic aberration's. The only aberration's I get are from my wife.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

While bowing to my more experienced and knowledgeable brethren (Kymarto, E. L. Shapiro, CHG CANON, Sharp Shooter, JerryC41, etc.) here on UHH, I use both the lens hood and Canon "Protect Filters" on my Canon lenses. I can't imagine that Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. would ever put their name on ANYTHING that would in ANY WAY degrade the potential of their lenses. Since some of my lenses are $$$ I am just a little paranoid and I take front element protection seriously.

Since we are on the subject of filters I just have to add a REALLY GOOD tip (in my estimation) that makes using filters diopters, lens caps, etc. tolerable. Use XUME (pronounced Zoom) Filter Adapters. I use them on all of my lenses. I can use (with practice) Xume Filter Adapters on a lens with a polarizer and lens shade attached.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUPvEgFItt4&t=3s
https://www.adorama.com/XULA77A.html?origterm=xume+77mm+3.03&searchredirect=true
Smile,
Jimmy T Sends

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have never heard of chromatic aberrations caused by a lack of a UV filter. I have never heard of Olympus using an "internal" UV filter.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

It’s a myth that digital sensors are not sensitive to UV light.
It’s a fact that multicoating in a lens blocks most UV light.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Back in August of 2015 Steve Perry did a great video about the value of filters today - (it is available on his BackCountry Gallery Photosite). Besides showing many photo examples of with/without filter, he also put to bed the idea that they offer any real protection, with a brutal "hammer style" drop test performed on a number of filters and lenses. While I've always doubted their protective capability, and had used them often in my film days, I was hard pressed to find any benefit in my digital work (with exception of star and soft focus types).

Realistically, if you look at how thin and fragile most filter glass appears to be, and compare that to most front lens elements, the thought (of them as protection) is pretty laughable, most front lens elements are not thin fragile sheet glass, they look like armored battle tanks in comparison. The bigger danger I see is to the special coatings that may be harmed/disturbed in a non-breakage impact or scrape. In that scenerio another piece of glass may help, but if the filter fractures, it could also cut into any coatings on the front glass.

While I do use hoods almost all the time, 99% of my filters are stacked in the photo armoire, and/or in their little cases. I simply stopped using filters, and haven't missed them at all. I did see that Sigma has new ceramic filters that are supposed to be quite tough, but I've not bought into that at this juncture. Truly, I haven't missed them at all.

Digital cameras (many that I've handled) have all sorts of builtin filters (through various "scene settings" and such) and can be employed with the touch of a button, wheel or menu setting.

Filters, not at this time, for me.... YMMV!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

- I am more inclined to believe there can be purple CA's from a UV filter CAUSING them !
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Indeed ! My experience is that most "facts" on the internet can be shockingly misleading !
.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Life as a photographer is either a daring adventure or a life where a hood is good enough.