Anyone have strong views about UV filters?
Sep 22, 2019 10:06:32 #
bpulv
Loc: Buena Park, CA
Rusty69 wrote:
Sorry about that - hit the wrong key trying to ind... (show quote)
UV and clear filters are pushed by camera sellers because they are high profit addons that are easy to push for extra profit; especially at the time you are buying a new camera and are spending so much money that the extra cost does not seem very much. Do not use a UV or clear filter on a digital camera! If it is built in, you are stuck with it. However, if it is built in, the manufacturer has hopefully compensated for it in the lens design. On a normal digital camera, a UV or clear filter serves NO photographic purpose and in fact even those of the best quality can introduce internal and external reflections and other issues that will degrade the contrast and sharpness of you photographs. Every piece of glass added to the stack of lens elements no matter how seemingly benign has effects; some positive and some negative. UV and clear filter's effects are all negative. On film cameras UV and Skylight filters were used to cut the inherent ultraviolet sensitivity of color film that can cause a bluish cast especially when shooting landscapes and in mountains.
The only argument for keeping a UV or clear glass filter on you lens is to protect your lens from damage. THE DEBATE HAS BEEN HOTLY CARRIED ON by Hedeghogers over and over again. I am on the side of those who advocate for using a lens hood whenever possible both to prevent side induced flare and for lens protection from bumps and scrapes. Others advocate for using the filters to protect the front surface of the lense arguing that the "cheep" filter will take the brunt of any hit rather than the expensive front lens element. There have been, however incidents where the filter shattered and the broken glass actually caused damage to the front element of a lens. So there are the facts. You need to weigh them and make up your own mind.
Sep 22, 2019 10:15:58 #
It's not whether you get knocked down in life, it's whether you can afford to repair your broken lens.
Sep 22, 2019 10:17:01 #
Regardless of the OPs intent, this topic is deja vu all over again. (Thx Yogi). I have UV filters to fit almost every lens I own. None have ever been attached. On the other hand, I also have a hood for each of those same lenses. I can’t remember the last time I didn’t have a hood attached on a lens being used. For me, it’s all about protection.
Sep 22, 2019 10:20:19 #
Rusty69 wrote:
In the course of researching my Lumix Prime, I stu... (show quote)
Are you serious, Rusty? You are asking ON THIS WEBSITE if anyone has a "strong view" about something photographic? I enjoyed reading. Hope you got the answer you were after.
Sep 22, 2019 10:21:21 #
Sep 22, 2019 10:56:18 #
Rusty69 wrote:
Thanks for this. Like most of the other respondents, you seem to know exactly what my problem is, and the solution. So what concerns me now is the readiness of camera retailers to sell these filters without so much as a glancing question as to their suitability or use. Oh well, I guess they are in business to make sales, so buyer beware! My thanks again to all who wrote on this issue - I love this site, and the education it is giving me. UV filters are now consigned to the scrap heap.
Not all retailers will sell you something you do not need, and if you ask them they will give you good advise. But if you just go in and pick one out they will sell it to you.....
A LOT of film cameras are still in use, and UV filters are good there.... With digital cameras, if you want front protection, use a quality clear glass filter.
Sep 22, 2019 11:07:07 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Those evil evil evil camera retailers, always so willing to free the novice photographer of their hard-earned money. Thankfully, the good and true UHH experts are here to set the record straight.
If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass rather than the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision.
If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass rather than the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision.
I care and between a lens hood and lens cap I have at most a spurious piece of dust and find the UV pushed by the retailers uses scare tactics. If a user is getting finger prints and gunk on their lenses they best carry their camera in big plastic bag. :)
Sep 22, 2019 11:11:44 #
From everything I've read, digital cameras do not need add-on UV filters. The manufacturers take care of that when they design the camera. I find it odd that Olympus would not include a UV filter in the camera but put it the lens, instead. Again, from what I've read, it's the sensor that isn't sensitive to UV light, rather than the camera maker adding a filter somewhere.
"The thing is, modern films and digital sensors just aren’t sensitive to UV light. It doesn’t affect them the way it does older films. This means you don’t need a UV filter to block UV light in order to take good photos."
https://www.howtogeek.com/355998/what-is-a-uv-filter-and-do-you-need-it-to-protect-your-camera-lens/
"This argument is almost completely spurious for modern digital cameras. With old film cameras it was often necessary to use a UV filter because film is extremely sensitive to UV light. However, digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV, so the problem doesn't arise to anything like the same extent."
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens
"The thing is, modern films and digital sensors just aren’t sensitive to UV light. It doesn’t affect them the way it does older films. This means you don’t need a UV filter to block UV light in order to take good photos."
https://www.howtogeek.com/355998/what-is-a-uv-filter-and-do-you-need-it-to-protect-your-camera-lens/
"This argument is almost completely spurious for modern digital cameras. With old film cameras it was often necessary to use a UV filter because film is extremely sensitive to UV light. However, digital sensors are generally rather insensitive to UV, so the problem doesn't arise to anything like the same extent."
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens
Sep 22, 2019 11:13:20 #
Although you can find images anywhere, it is rare they are found on the shelf with the cap on.
Sep 22, 2019 11:16:36 #
cahale
Loc: San Angelo, TX
Mac wrote:
Your title is misleading. You're not asking for views on UV filters, you're asking about UV filters on specific equipment.
UV filters were widely used on film cameras, but not so much on digital cameras. I have never heard of chromatic aberration on a digital camera caused by not having a UV filter on.
UV filters were widely used on film cameras, but not so much on digital cameras. I have never heard of chromatic aberration on a digital camera caused by not having a UV filter on.
I agree. I used to use them, but found no evidence in any comparison photos that they were needed for still shots. Movies, I don't know, since I rarely indulge.
Sep 22, 2019 11:22:33 #
pithydoug wrote:
I care and between a lens hood and lens cap I have at most a spurious piece of dust and find the UV pushed by the retailers uses scare tactics. If a user is getting finger prints and gunk on their lenses they best carry their camera in big plastic bag. :)
I have never seen a retailer PUSHING filters. Can you show an example of one, so I will not use them. They do list items on their web sites, but I have never seen a retailer PUSHING them. Ads are ads, not pushing.
Sep 22, 2019 11:43:46 #
Sep 22, 2019 11:47:24 #
Sep 22, 2019 11:54:10 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Those evil evil evil camera retailers, always so willing to free the novice photographer of their hard-earned money. Thankfully, the good and true UHH experts are here to set the record straight.
If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass rather than the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision.
If you'd rather clean the fingerprints, dust, and miscellaneous gunk off the filter glass rather than the lens surface, use a high-quality Clear or UV filter. If you don't care, don't use a filter. It's your lens; it's your decision.
Sep 22, 2019 12:18:19 #
Mac wrote:
Your title is misleading. You're not asking for views on UV filters, you're asking about UV filters on specific equipment.
UV filters were widely used on film cameras, but not so much on digital cameras. I have never heard of chromatic aberration on a digital camera caused by not having a UV filter on.
UV filters were widely used on film cameras, but not so much on digital cameras. I have never heard of chromatic aberration on a digital camera caused by not having a UV filter on.
Correct!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.