larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I always use a clear filter on my lenses. This is for protection of the objective (front) element against scratches or breakage, but it is mostly for protection of any front surface coating against scratches and wear from cleaning. Those coatings are much softer than glass and therefore much easier to scratch. Cleaning materials that would be perfectly safe on bare glass may easily create accidental scratches or may erode away over time as the result of cleaning. Much better to repeatedly clean a filter than an expensive front lens surface.

Claims that semiconductor sensors are not sensitive to ultraviolet light are misleading. Frequency response, whether in an audio system or in an optical system, is a complicated topic. There are complex, expensive filters and even digital processors that can pass an audio frequency of, say 1,000 hertz but not one of 1100 hertz. But they are not common, and they are unheard of in equipment that consumers purchase. More likely is a filter that will pass the 1,000 hertz signal without effect, and will pass the 2,000 hertz signal at 1/4 the voltage ("6 db/octave") or 1/16 the voltage (12 db/octave), but not zero. Optical filters are the same...no square cutoff of frequencies, just a gradual reduction as the energy moves up the spectrum. So describing a sensor as not sensitive to UV is not the same as saying that it is not affected by UV. If a sensor can capture images of violet objects, you can know that it is also sensitive to at least some energy in the Near UV spectrum. Fortunately, even plain glass makes a good UV filter. The glass in car windows, which is about a quart inch thick, gets just about all of it.

Like most aspects of photography, the decision to use filters or not is, in the end, up to the individual photographer, for whatever reason. But arguing that they do not have any beneficial effect is not valid.

CaptainPhoto

I use UV filters on my lenses. That being said, I use good quality U V filters, not the cheap ones. I have a good camera and good lenses. I don't think with today's cameras (DSLR) that you would get that much change in an image taken with our without a UV filter that the human eye could see, unless our blowing it up to mega-poster size. There sure are some strong OPINIONS on this topic, so I will just have to make a test and see for myself.
Happy shooting.

abraham.losa Loc: Miami FL

Hi,first of all I’m not rude,read my question and then read the first answer I received ,everyday I see topics here that I’ve seen a thousand times before and I would never give that answer to anybody,if you don’t have anything to say ,don’t say anything at all ,it’s not what you say,it’s the way you say it ,have a wonderful day 👍🏻

leftj Loc: Texas

Bingo on your last sentence.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, adding any filter to your lens will have some effect. Shooting through an extra layer of glass will always have some effect. It may be very little lost to a high quality, multi-coated filter under ideal conditions. Or it can be a lot with a cheap, low quality filter under most conditions. Or, something in between... such as shooting in more extreme lighting conditions (such as strong back-lighting), even a high quality filter can have some negative effects.

What do you think the filter is "protecting" from? To me it's rather silly to think a thin piece of glass is going to do much in the way of "protection". Sure, there are certain situations when it might be helpful... shooting at the seashore, for example... or out in a sandstorm... or shooting a paintball battle. But most of the time the filter serves no purpose at all.

UV filters were frequently used with film because much of it was overly sensitive to UV light, which would cause a bluish cast to images. So back in the day with film we used UV filters a lot and I bet a lot of people assumed we used them for "protection", not realizing their real purpose.

Digital photography doesn't have the same problem with UV light. In fact, UV filtration is built right into the cameras. There may be rare occasions where a UV filter helps reduce a blue haze in a scene, but it's pretty uncommon with digital.

A lens CAP (while not in use) and a lens HOOD (while in use both) do a MUCH better job physically protecting a lens. Plus a properly fitted lens hood can only enhance your images. (Obviously a lens cap won't! )

I've been shooting a long time, collect vintage cameras, buy and sell quite a few and do some simple repairs myself. I've actually seen lenses that appeared to have been damaged by a smashed filter.... scratched by the sharp shards of glass. But to be honest it's impossible to say for certain if the lens would have survived better or worse without the filter. It's equally impossible to say whether or not it's true when someone states "a filter saved my lens". In general, modern lens optics are a lot tougher than people think (the internal mechanisms are another matter... watch the video linked below).

Modern coatings and glass are also far, far less prone to "cleaning marks" that were common in the past. I've seen a lot of those... on uncoated lenses from the 1950s and earlier that used "soft" glass... and on lenses from the mid-1950s through the 1990s that used "soft" or delicate lens coatings. Most lens glass and coatings today are pretty darned tough. Besides, unless they're really big, marks on a front lens element don't show up in images... even heavy "cleaning marks" on old lenses mostly just cause flare and reduce contrast slightly. And the REASON for "cleaning marks" was primarily the cheap "lens tissues" everyone used to clean their lenses. Those are made from wood pulp and wood has minerals in it, which can be hard and cause scratches. Personally, I stopped using those and switched to 100% rag and other, better optical cleaning products, more recently to "micro fiber" cloths. I've got some 20+ year old "modern" lenses that have been cleaned many times and look as good as new, thanks to better cleaning supplies (plus reasonable care using them, such as removing all dust "grit" gently with a blower or brush before doing any "wiping").

This whole issue has been discussed here and on every photo forum, ad nauseum. It often comes down to a spitting contest of opposing OPINIONS and very little actual proof. There have been few valid tests either way.

But thankfully one person here on this forum has actually taken the time and made the effort to do some testing of the effectiveness of filters for "protection". Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds Then you can decide for yourself. I particularly noticed the filter that broke when struck with a weight that didn't tear a plain sheet of paper! Also by some of the lenses that showed no damage where their front elements were struck, but were unusable due to internal damage. There also are some sites online that show the other side of the question: the loss of image quality to filters.... I don't have any links at hand, but you can probably find some with Google.

Personally I have "UV/protection" filters in sizes to fit most of my lenses (I have a couple lenses that cannot be fitted with filters). I keep those filters OFF my lenses and separately stored in my camera bag, for use if and when they might actually serve a purpose. Those filters are among my LEAST used accessories. I use a circular polarizing filter far, far more often... because it actually enhances images in various ways and serves a positive purpose... but even it doesn't stay on my lens all the time (CPL have multiple layers of glass AND "cost" between 1.25 and 2.25 stops of light, maybe a little bit less if the modern "high transmissive" type).

In the end, it's your lens and your money, so just do whatever makes you feel good.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Maybe so...

But you're forgetting a few things.

First, digital camera sensors always have a filter permanently installed in front of them. (Even cameras without "anti-alias/low pass" filters have a coated glass filter to protect the sensor.)

In addition, with digital you can set custom white balance (or let the camera adjust white balance itself) to counteract the bluish tint that UV light caused on film.

These things weren't possible with film and much film was OVERLY sensitive to the UV spectrum.

UV and Skylight filters were the weaker type many of us used to correct for this with film. We also used slight stronger "warming" filters such as 81A, 81B and 81C.

But with digital, if you have those filters on your lens auto white balance or, especially, custom white balance will completely cancel out their effect.

But it's still possible to get similar effect without filters, using a custom white balance and "Warm Cards" (https://www.vortexmediastore.com/pages/warmcards-white-balance-system)

There are rare occasions where a UV filter can be used to remove a cool/bluish cast from a scene.... However, for the filter to have any effect you would need to remove it, set a custom white balance without it, then reinstall it. Otherwise, auto white balance or a custom WB set through the filter will simply cancel out its effect.

ecurb1105

Yes, the filter can affect the image. Enough to see, maybe or maybe not. I used to use a UV filter when I shot aerials on Ektachrome film, but not since I went digital. I protect my lenses with hoods.

jak86094

Abraham,

Just a couple of observations. First, no one has responded that they did NOT use a protective filter (e.g., UV) and the front lens element got scratched. In fact, while I'm sure it has happened, I've never heard anyone say that they scratched the front element of their lens because they didn't use a filter. Anyone out there want to tell us about that happening? If so, what were the circumstances? In sand or dust storm? Salt spray from the beach? Maybe you only need to put a filter on in extreme circumstances. I've seen several demonstrations where the lens was repeatedly gouged and banged without a filter and no scratches. I've also seen demonstrations where the filter glass caused extra lens flare...when bright lights/sunlight are shining directly into the lens.

Second, it would help us if you use the Quote Reply button when you reply to a specific person so we know who you are replying to. Just a suggestion.

Thanks for posting your query.

jak

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

Yet another plus for Nikon lenses. At least for those that are weather sealed. If I am shooting with a non weather sealed lens, it is not out in the rain or snow or sleet.

Bill P

To say that a filter does not affect the image recorded is just an uninformed and uneducated opinion. The geeks at lensrentals tested a variety of UV filters from cheap to as expensive as a new car, and found that there were indeed ones that had little effect and others that had all the optical properties of saran wrap. I have, for many years had a policy of always using a hood, and sometimes using a filter. I consider the conditions under which I am shooting. If I'm shooting n a crowd, like at an airshow, or on a beach or a boat near salt water, or in winds that blow dust everywhere, I put on the filter. I enjoy street photography, and always use the filter there. In my first job at a commercial studio, I was sent to photograph a welder working on something. For a reason I forget, I needed to do it with a 40mm on a Hasselblad, and didn't have a filter. the result? a trip to the repairman for cleaning and recoating. So in that situation, I always use a filter.

Otherwise, nope.

abraham.losa Loc: Miami FL

I’m sorry, you’re right ,👍🏻

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Probably weren’t using hood?

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Yes. I have seen observations that using a clear filter often gets you broken clear filters.

I tried one relatively good one for a while. I felt it was softening my images. So I did test. It was quite noticable. Haven’t used one since. No scratched lenses. I am fairly religious on using lens cap and hood. I only don’t use hood when using camera flash...a reduced case because my z6 doesn’t have one.

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

Anything, even the finest optical glass filters, that you place in the light path have the potential of degrading the image as you add more optical surfaces to the equation. Poor quality filters can cause various distortions, additional aberrations and contrast loss due to flare. The use of fine quality filter will minimise these possibilities. Some slight diminishing of the image quality will probably go unnoticed unless the image is subject to greater degrees of enlargement. With high quality filters, I have produce prints of 40x40 inches in size and larger with no issues.

The use of an efficient lens shade is especially important with filter usage.

UV and Skylight filters, aside form protectional issues, were oftentimes required with color FILM to reduce a bluish or cyan casts that resulted from high UV presence under certain weather and atmospheric conditions or with the use of electronic flash. Some white fabrics and paints contain UV brighteners that would fluress and take on a blush color when photographed with light sources with high UV content. Theses condition are no longer problematic with digital cameras.

So... my own policy is I use a protectional filter only when necessary where there are conditions, air quality or perils that coud harm the front element of my lenses such as blowing sand, salt air, airborne debris, filings or sawdust that may be prevalent in industrial environments, splatter when I am shooting food being prepared, etc. I use colored filters for monochrome work and polarizing filters when required. High quality filters that are properly coated are your best bet. Some recommended brands are B+W, Zeiss, Sing-Ray, Hoya and Tiffen (Professional).

I hope this helps. Best of the season!

abraham.losa Loc: Miami FL

Very helpful,thanks 👍🏻