UV Filters: I notice some of you folks don't use UV filters to protect your glass because it softens your pictures. I can't say I notice that. They have saved me on more than one...

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

I notice some of you folks don't use UV filters to protect your glass because it softens your pictures. I can't say I notice that. They have saved me on more than one occasion from damaging my lens. What's the consensus?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

gemlenz wrote:

I notice some of you folks don't use UV filters to protect your glass because it softens your pictures. I can't say I notice that. They have saved me on more than one occasion from damaging my lens. What's the consensus?

I don't make money from my photography, so many of my shots are not so critical that I have to remove the protective filter. If I think something is going to be "important," I'll remove the filter. I've looked at "with" and "without" images, and there isn't much difference. There's much more difference between a perfect lens and a cracked/scratched lens.

mikeysaling Loc: essex uk

I always use UV for lens protection - this nikon 18-105 cropped - vignette is me trying to be artistic not camera/lens combo !

This is Anoushka our Russian Blue

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

My answer to this topic is if you are going to use a UV filter, buy a good one and don't cheap out. I recently bought a used (almost never used) Sigma 50-500mm lens from eBay. I tested the lens out in all focal lengths and when I enlarged the image to 100% they were out of focus. I was ready to send the lens out for service ($320) when it donned on me to take the UV filter off (HOYA 86mm UV(0)) and try it on the same subject I originally shot when I enlarged the pictures at 100% up to 290% they were tack sharp. I believe the filter on it had a tint and was so thick it didn't allow the autofocus to work properly. Personally I like Nikon Neutral Color filters better, but they only come up to 77mm in size.

mafadecay Loc: Wales UK

gemlenz wrote:

I notice some of you folks don't use UV filters to protect your glass because it softens your pictures. I can't say I notice that. They have saved me on more than one occasion from damaging my lens. What's the consensus?

I have them attached but remove for shooting along with the lens cap. (Seems kinda pointless). They do degrade the image if using good glass. If I was scrambling rocks or similar I would leave it on while shooting.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

I use a UV filter Hoya multicoated or B&W. Minimally they keep the front of the lens clean. So i'm only cleaning the filter not the lens with it's coating.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Y' know, I've dragged cameras through forests, over mountains, and through desertss without a UV "protective" filter on my lens. I use lens hoods and I've never scratched or broken a lens yet. It's just another gizmo the camera salesman tacks on to boost up the sale. Just like cleaning fluid and lens papers

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

gemlenz wrote:

I notice some of you folks don't use UV filters to protect your glass because it softens your pictures. I can't say I notice that. They have saved me on more than one occasion from damaging my lens. What's the consensus?

I never use UV filters---that's what insurance is for. Back in the day when I was shooting with film equipment, I always had a filter to protect the glass. I think I just followed the other lemmings. To date, I have never damaged a lens. I have dropped my camera a couple times, but the lens each time survived without a scratch. I guess I'm lucky.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

mdorn wrote:

quote=gemlenz I notice some of you folks don't us... (show quote)

Naw, you just know how to drop correctly. :D

DavidT Loc: Maryland

gemlenz wrote:

I notice some of you folks don't use UV filters to protect your glass because it softens your pictures. I can't say I notice that. They have saved me on more than one occasion from damaging my lens. What's the consensus?

I've never noticed any sharpness degradation when using UV filters - both cheap (Tiffen) and expensive (B+W) ones (I may get some flak for that statement). But, I do always get multi-coated UV filters (e.g., Hoya HMC) because the multi-coating does make a noticeable difference in reducing lens flare; especially on wide-angle lenses.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I agree that cheap UV filters or one made in the film era degrade the image, but my first experience with a bad UV filter was the Hoya which was not multi coated.

DavidT wrote:

quote=gemlenz I notice some of you folks don't us... (show quote)

Dixiegirl Loc: Alabama gulf coast

I leave mine on all the time and haven't noticed my photos being soft...unless I want them that way :-)

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Have you blown the photographs up to 100% or beyond? That is when you start to see problem in the lens or filters.

Dixiegirl wrote:

I leave mine on all the time and haven't noticed my photos being soft...unless I want them that way :-)

Dixiegirl Loc: Alabama gulf coast

I'm not getting any blurring at 200%, but I'm going to try again without the filter and see if I notice a difference.

Brucej67 wrote:

Have you blown the photographs up to 100% or beyond? That is when you start to see problem in the lens or filters.

Dixiegirl wrote:

I leave mine on all the time and haven't noticed my photos being soft...unless I want them that way :-)

DK Loc: SD

Just depends on who you are talking to and their mindset. I've told this story before about the news photographer who was shooting a rodeo next to me when a horse's hoof threw up a rock which hit his lens. When he took the filter off, the glass all fell out of the filter ring, but the lens was un-damaged. He was happy.