View Full Version : UV filter?

01-16-2009, 11:55 PM
What exactly is the reason for adding a UV filter to your camera?

01-17-2009, 12:29 AM
mainly for protecting the front element of the lens. although there is apparently some form of improvement in contrast from these filters on a hazy day.

01-17-2009, 07:56 AM
With film, a UV filter used to cut some haze, but the effect isn't really noticeable on digital cameras. The biggest problem with filters, UV or any other, is that they can cause reflections. This is most noticeable in low-light shots with bright light sources (street lights, for example.)

So as far as protection goes...if you care about your lens, put it on. If you care about your pictures, leave it off.

Here's a stark example of a UV filter reflection...

Read up on UV filters here...
FERRARI 250 GTO HISTORY (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_250_GTO)

01-17-2009, 08:49 AM
I bypass the need for a UV by having a circular polarizer on my better lenses. I normally then take it off to shoot inside ... with just the lens, but when I go outside, it is always ready and I do not have to go digging around for it. Its "secondary" role is the protection of the lens.

Yes, they cost more than the UV, but serve the same prophylactic purpose without have to worry about ALWAYS removing it. It really does serve a real working purpose, unlike the UV. Personally, it's a matter of process, in my opinion.

01-17-2009, 03:36 PM
i dont take any of my UV filters off. ever.

01-21-2009, 05:09 PM
There are those who argue "Why putting a cheap filter in front of that expensive lens?". Well for a pro working in a clean studio there might be no need for that filter, but for outdoors a UV filter lessen the need to clean the lens. I always have mine on. It's easier to clean the filter too.

01-21-2009, 11:12 PM
Here it is again:


01-22-2009, 07:15 AM
A common question:

What exactly is the reason for adding a UV filter to your camera?

Most people will say (quite correctly) to protect your expensive lens(es) as CCD and CMOS sensors are largely unaffected by the UV spectrum unlike film stock, which was.

But... in my opinion, the hardened coatings of entrance pupils on modern lenses means they don't need any specific "protection".

The pros of using a UV filter (particularly if it's not a top-of-the-range model) for any alleged "protective" properties are outweighed by the fact that you're introducing two additional air-glass interfaces into the light path, along with the possibility of increased refractive errors even extremely minor ones.

Why add an additional piece of glass to the manufacturers' precisely designed and produced lens?

Cheers :)

01-22-2009, 03:57 PM
Why add an additional piece of glass to the manufacturers' precisely designed and produced lens?


Because the advantage outweights the disadvantage.

Advantage: Lesser need to clean the lens. And easy to clean the lens when the need arises.

Disadvantage: .... [ . ] ..... really negligible as any faults cause by placing that cheap glass (filter) on the lens can't be detected by human eyes.

Personally, I use UV filter to keep out the dirt.

Oh well... I think we open up the argument again :D

D Thompson
01-22-2009, 07:49 PM
Ah, the age old questions - pepsi/coke, ford/chevy/ pc/mac, canon/nikon, democrat/republican, boxers/briefs, m&m's-plain/peanut, miller lite/bud lite, and the invariable from time to time uv/non-uv. Who's right - arguments support both sides on all these with equal enthusiasm. More to the point - who cares? I choose non-uv, you choose uv, and that should be fine with both of us.

To the OP - basically it's protection. Or you can choose to use a lens hood for a little extra protection. In 30 years I've never had a lens destroyed. If you shoot in situations where gravel/dirt/crap is flying in all directions you might want to use one, otherwise to me it's a waste.