Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Once again JerryC41 has provided the most comprehensive Objective Quality Evidence (OQE) VIA our own UHH member Steve Perrys' training link below. Please see the comprehensive film clip "UV Filters: DoYou Really Need Them?" in the middle of the page of the training link below. Looks like this SHOULD FINALLY end the UV Filter argument forever. Huge Grin.
https://www.howtogeek.com/355998/what-is-a-uv-filter-and-do-you-need-it-to-protect-your-camera-lens/

Now with eyes cast downwards and a toe deep in the sand, I have to admit that in the future I will only use the lens shade to keep big greasy fingerprints off of my lens and my "Protect Filter" will only be used to keep dust and salt spray off of the front element of my lens.
Grrrrr, thanks a lot JerryC41. Sigh.

Forced Smile,
Jimmy T Sends

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

something is all wrong and confused here. Camera sensors have had both IR and UV filters build right in to the cover glass or two cover glasses on the sensor. And for most cameras until lately, an AA filter. A couple of the first minus an AA filter were the Nikon D800E and Pentax K-5iiS. Film was highly over sensitive to UV light, and Sensors sensitive to IR, Visible, and Near UV. True, glass does not transmit far UV.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Are you really just 0.3% away from being the photographer you dreamed of being?

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

rcarol

Have you verified that your source of information is reliable? I would have more faith in that statement if the information came from more than one reliable source. Remember: "Trust but verify."

Bill P

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.[/quote]

Your points in this graf are thoughtful and well reasoned


Of course the camera store is trying to make a quick buck selling crap filters and of course they will degrade everything from your photos to the wine you drink with dinner.

I have always bought B+W and top of the line Hoya (not the cheap ones). In the few test done recently by Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals, his results were confounding, and before buying another filter I will refer to his article, as I think B+W wasn't uniformly at the very top. I'm afraid that they are made with the same over engineering as the German car I once owned. The Hoyas tested well. Some of the top ones were brands that i've never heard of.

And I'll admit I have been know to forget to take the filter off when not needed, but I've never seen any problems.

As I stated in another post, I recently read where Joel Sartore said he regularly keeps one on his lenses. If they're ok for him, then why are we on this forum all too good to use one?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When you remove your filter,
that's when your photography will shine.
Then you can work on points for style.
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye
and an easy smile.

Bill P

No, of course I don't use cheapo filters, any more than I use cheapo lenses or cameras.

PhotonRancher

Why would the lack of a UV filter cause Chromatic Aberration? It would increase the number of glass to air surfaces which can reduce contrast and also shift the color slightly.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

I work with UV light. I’ve tried all kinds of alternatives to improve transmission of UV.

Digital sensors have a wide bandwidth - roughly 10nm to 1500. Glass reduces that to 350nm-1200nm (varies with the type of glass - as the amount of silicates increases the transmission amount of UV increases). Plastic is opaque to UV and the sensor is covered by a plasticized micro lens filter and Bayer filter - UV transmission is cut way down before the IR/UV filter is put on top of that. So even if you remove the hot filter you still are dealing with components that significantly reduce UV. Lens coatings can reduce UV significantly - UV blocking coatings seem to be on most modern lenses. I’ve found that old, pre ‘72, lenses tend to transmit far more UV than modern lenses - and they still have coatings. I’m looking for still older lenses that have no coatings to see how that works.

Take a raw sensor - the UV sensitivity soars by roughly 5-6x (depending on sensor design). Unfortunately this type of photography grade UV capable camera uniformly cost in 30K range. More unfortunately removing the microlenses from a regular camera increases the sensitivity but adversely affects resolution, sometimes extremely so as it will change the focal plane distance.

Okay - back in the day some B&W and color films were highly sensitive to UV. Shooting with them at altitude resulted in artifacts that a UV filter could correct. So back the I used one. I never saw any UV artifacts shooting at sea level.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Front elements do not necessarily break if they hit something, but in my days working with many, many vintage lenses, I have seen front elements with chips, with nicks with gouges...not to mention scratches and "cleaning marks". Any time you wipe a lens you risk scratching it. If there is a tiny piece of grit or dust on the lens itself or on your cleaning cloth or paper that is harder than the glass, and you pull it along the lens surface with any force, it will leave a mark. Nor are coatings generally as hard as the glass itself, and repeated cleanings can eventually erode the coating.

And unless you only shoot pics in a studio, you are sure to eventually get airborne contaminants on the lens surface that will require cleaning. Oily deposits will require some force to remove. I work in difficult conditions, and have to wipe my lenses repeatedly when shooting in industrial or outdoor situations. I don't have time in the middle of a news event to take a break to clean the lens. I use filters, and after years of heavy use, all my glass is pristine. I replace filters. That's the point. No one, in my entire professional career, has complained that my images have somehow been degraded by the use of a protective filter.

I do remove filters in certain situations--shooting into bright point-source lights, because of possible extra reflections--actually reflections of the glass below on the inner surface of the filter, but those situations are very rare. I have done careful tests with medium quality filters and have found that shots with and without filter are indistinguishable practically speaking. 100% views--you can't tell them apart. Yes, theoretically, any extra piece of glass in the optical path will affect the image. Practically, if you can't actually see the difference, what does it matter.

For me the use of decent clear filters on expensive lenses is a no-brainer.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

In the film days they shot UV photography with Quartz lenses. Extremely expensive even in the Seventies! I own a number of books on technical, medical, and scientific photography. Recently I tried an experiment with my IR converted DSLR (has a 665nm installed filter, so I records a lot of visible color as well), and I have both glass and gel filters of 720nm uo to 900nm. I have yet to try an additional on lens filter yet as it is a lot of work. You have to pre-focus as several of the filters look "black" to the human eye. But I had used the with IR film and normal digital cameras in the past. What I was going to tell you is I've thought of the coatings as well per IR and did find an older Auto Takumar 35mm f/3.5 lens that is older than my Super Takumar similar lens that is multicoated. But less so than a SMC Takumar or SMC Pentax K lens. I think the Auto Takumar is either single coated or uncoated. I've compared similar shots with both a Auto Takumar 35mm f/3.5 and a Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5. Thus far I've gotten inconclusive results, the images are certainly different but I can't say one is better than the other, just different. I might also want to compare my other 35mm lenses for IR use on my Converted Pentax K-100D, say my M-35mm f/3.5, A-35mm f/3.5, and "digital" DA-35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited. I have a lot of 50mm and 35mm lenses! At 850 or 880 nm I may see a bigger difference.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I always use UV filters, but I use them based on the situations. I have a many for different color temperatures and that's the way I use them! That's the way I did with film and that's the way I do it now with digital. Many people are saying digital sensors are not sensitive to UV light and no filtering is needed, but that's just not true. It still works to avoid certain color casts with UV filters when shooting digital!

MoT Loc: Barrington, IL

I am pretty sure that all glass and the glass uv filters filter uv light and that uv filters are primarily useful in the scattering of blue light and uv by the molecules that compose air as these molecules are about the same size of the far blue and uv wave lengths. I think they are more important in protecting the front element of a lens. That said, the filter should be multi coated at a minimum to prevent any problems such a ghosting and flaring.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I suggest to all who are trying to decide whether to use a protective filter or not to do a simple test, which takes only a few moments: Set your camera up on a tripod and shoot exactly the same shot with and without the filter of your choice. Blow up to 100% and compare.

leicajah Loc: Texas, grew up in Louisiana

I shoot with Leicas. Some think it is against the law to put non Leica filters on a Leica Camera. I do have a Leica polarizer that I use