UV filter

[gdt]

I have filters on all my lenses and am wondering if a UV filter can remain on a lens even though there is not an issue with glare, as in indoor shooting.

I realize some filters are a bit darker than others and some of my "filters" are clear, used just for protection of the lens.

Care to enlighten me? ;)

[michaelb]

The only purpose that UV filters serve is to protect your lens - they have not other benefit that I am aware of. Many argue that they should not be used because they degrade image quality; it seems that is up for debate.

I have not typically used UV filters, but I have cheap lenses!! I am on the verge in investing is some pricey lenses and I am leaning towards purchasing a UV filter to protect my expensive glass.

My 18-55 has some smudges in the lens coating from everyday use which is OK for a lens that I can replace for $70, but this would not be OK for an expensive lens!!

Thus, in my opinon, if you are shooting with a cheap kit lens, skip the UV filter, but if you are using expensive glass I would strongly consider it.

[noyjimi]

I have filters on all my lenses and am wondering if a UV filter can remain on a lens even though there is not an issue with glare, as in indoor shooting.

I realize some filters are a bit darker than others and some of my "filters" are clear, used just for protection of the lens.

Care to enlighten me? ;)

sure you can keep it on, the IQ will be fine but not identical as with a "naked" lens. if the filter loses light, then you'll have to compensate.

[cwphoto]

This is what a UV filter can do:

http://www.photo.net.au/members/d/4683-2/1-1-IMG_3009.JPG

I own some of the most expensive lenses in the business, all of them are naked - heck the most expensive ones don't even give you a choice!

Do yourself a favour; forget any form of filter unless it's for creative purposes.

[RichNY]

I think part of what the pro/neg argument comes down to is what type of photography you are going be do doing. I recently attended a seminar by Vincent Laforet who is a NY Times photo journalist. He is pro filter for protection, says he typically cleans his lens by using part of his shirt, and that when you're out in the field that's about you can do.

Studio, wedding, sports- you've got a bit more control over your environment and can take better care of your equipment and image quality is more important.

Take a lool at some of Vinent's work. I really liked his Pakistan 9/01 under Editorial One and Katrina- One Year Later under Editorial Two.

http://www.laforetvisuals.com/main.php

[cwphoto]

IStudio, wedding, sports- you've got a bit more control over your environment and can take better care of your equipment and image quality is more important.

Studio for sure, but the last sports shoot I did my gear got caked in dust. Even wedding I'm down in a sand-storm sometimes (on the beach).

The front element is a lot hardier than we think. Lens tissue plus fluid and problem solved. The shirt thing is just carelessness in my book.

[timmciglobal]

If it makes you feel better use one but don't buy the crapy kind.

B+W MRC are the best, multicoated built well.

I don't use them but if peace of mind is your goal it's better to enjoy taking photos then worrying about the lens.

Tim

[michaelb]

This is what a UV filter can do:

I own some of the most expensive lenses in the business, all of them are naked - heck the most expensive ones don't even give you a choice!

Do yourself a favour; forget any form of filter unless it's for creative purposes.

I respect your choice, but when I invest in expensive glass I think I will purchase a good UV filter; almost all of my work is done outdoors, often hiking. If you could see what I've done to my poor kit lens you might understand!!!

By the way, many on FM get their B&W and Hoya filters from this guy in Hong Kong. His prices are hard to beat and I have heard no one complain about purchases from him.

http://shop.vendio.com/hkd/item/786676975/index.html

[Forced Perfect]

If it makes you feel better use one but don't buy the crapy kind.

B+W MRC are the best, multicoated built well.

I don't use them but if peace of mind is your goal it's better to enjoy taking photos then worrying about the lens.

Tim

I couldn't agree more. B+W MRC is a great filter. A cheap one will surely give you a horrible photo like the example shown in this thread. I have never had a problem using mine (B+W on my L and a Hoya SMC or whatever on my S2 IS). You couldn't pay me to take the one off my L. It's been there since it came out of the box and I feel pretty save having it there.

[cwphoto]

I respect your choice, but when I invest in expensive glass I think I will purchase a good UV filter; almost all of my work is done outdoors, often hiking. If you could see what I've done to my poor kit lens you might understand!!!

By the way, many on FM get their B&W and Hoya filters from this guy in Hong Kong. His prices are hard to beat and I have heard no one complain about purchases from him.

http://shop.vendio.com/hkd/item/786676975/index.html

I respect your choice too - but what would you do if you bought a 300mm f/2.8? A USD4k lens that doesn't even allow you to attach a front filter?!

You would be hard pressed to photograph in conditions worse than I just did with the Speedway photos at Wagga. Every time the bikes would come past I literally would get showered with dust/mud and rocks. My gear got covered with the stuff including mud being thrown onto the front element of the 400mm f/2.8 - which doesn't allow filter attachments anyway!

The gear is tougher than you think.

[Forced Perfect]

I respect your choice too - but what would you do if you bought a 300mm f/2.8? A USD4k lens that doesn't even allow you to attach a front filter?!

You would be hard pressed to photograph in conditions worse than I just did with the Speedway photos at Wagga. Every time the bikes would come past I literally would get showered with dust/mud and rocks. My gear got covered with the stuff including mud being thrown onto the front element of the 400mm f/2.8 - which doesn't allow filter attachments anyway!

The gear is tougher than you think.

Don't both of those have replacable protective front elements that you can take off? ;)

[cwphoto]

Don't both of those have replacable protective front elements that you can take off? ;)

Not that I'm aware of - at least not user-replaceable, and not cheap either.

[Forced Perfect]

Not that I'm aware of - at least not user-replaceable, and not cheap either.

From the article:

"With build quality that is typical of Canon L Series Lenses, the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is made to take the rigors of professional use. A protective objective element can be replaced relatively inexpensively should something unfortunate happen. "

Source: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Out of all the lens review sites I've been to, he's the one I trust most. hehe I'm not saying it isn't costly, but it's sure less than it would be had the unit have to be taken apart or a big ground element have to be swapped.

[cwphoto]

From the article:

"With build quality that is typical of Canon L Series Lenses, the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens is made to take the rigors of professional use. A protective objective element can be replaced relatively inexpensively should something unfortunate happen. "

Source: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Out of all the lens review sites I've been to, he's the one I trust most. hehe I'm not saying it isn't costly, but it's sure less than it would be had the unit have to be taken apart or a big ground element have to be swapped.

Ah, yeah I've read that. A non-user serviceable item though.

I think the important term here is "relatively" - probably about the same as (if not more than) the front element of a typical "domestic" lens, so it's still the same dough if one needs replacing.

My point is that it's incredibly rare that any front element will be damaged by even the harshest of elements - the whole protective filter thing is driven by the commercial FUD factor of greedy, margin-hungry photographic retailers.

Marks from dust, dirt, fingerprints etc on the front element are easily cleaned without damaging it. I can't see the point in buying super-sharp optics only to compromise them with mis-placed and over-zealous concern over "protection".

[D Thompson]

As for me - uv = no, lens hood = yes.

For those that are pro-filter - how many filters have you actually had to replace because they were destroyed?

For the non filter - how many front elements have you replaced and would a filter have made any difference?

I've not really checked with Canon, but I had 1 shop owner tell me that the cost of replacing just the front piece of glass ain't that much, certainly not the cost of the lens in the first place.

Doesn't matter to me what you decide to do. ;)

[LoveOfSelene]

The more and more I read about the UV filter stuff. I'm beginning to think, "Maybe I should take off those UV filters."

the thing that really is getting to me is the question i read on earlier about "How many UV's have i replaced?" and "why would you place a $$ dollor filter on a $1200 lens?"

and what CW says about the mud and dirt. hmmmmm

Does anyone know how much it would be to replace the front element?

[noyjimi]

Does anyone know how much it would be to replace the front element?

last time i checked, between $100 and $200 on something like a 77mm