UV filter for lens protection? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

04/27/2005 09:58:10 AM · #1

This may have been discussed before, but the search feature says it's not working right now for the forums.

After posting in this thread forum thread I started wondering how many people use the UV filter for a lens protector and why or why not? Perhaps I should rethink my choice on the matter.

loz1

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/27/2005 10:00:20 AM · #2

I dont use it but I have read that people use it to avoid scratches while people dont like them as they just ad more glass to your camera, which takes quality away. At the end of the day less is better unless you need to use filters.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

04/27/2005 10:22:59 AM · #3

I use them on my more expensive lenses but don't bother with them on my cheaper ones. A lens hood can also give a good level of protection from accidnetal contact to your front element. I don't think high quality UV filters degrade images, at least not so that anyone could notice it.

rayg544

Olympus E-5

Olympus 18-180mm f/3.5-6.3 Zuiko ED Digitial Zoom

04/27/2005 10:26:39 AM · #4

I use one because I have a cheap HP camera and if I scratch up the lens, it will need to be replaced (meaning the camera and all has to go in for repairs). I used them with my Nikon EM 35mm on all three lenses. Didn't have any problem with quality.

jrtodd

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/27/2005 10:29:03 AM · #5

Originally posted by coolhar:

I don't think high quality UV filters degrade images, at least not so that anyone could notice it.

My thoughts as well, never in 25 years of cameras have I owned a lens with out a UV filter. Except the first one, dropped it and chipped the lens. My dad was pissed.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/27/2005 10:29:26 AM · #6

i don't use them ... life is a risk :)

just doesn't seem right putting a 12 dollar piece of glass in front of a multi-hundred dollar piece of glass. it's like a plastic cover for an expensive couch, or pillows that you aren't allowed to use, or buying a porsche just to leave it in the garage 9 months out of the year ... i just don't get it.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

04/27/2005 10:30:33 AM · #7

I use UV filters on all my lens from the kit lens to my canon "L" lens. I was told in another thread it is not good to use one on a high end lens such as the canon "L" lens because it will degrade the quality. I took some test shots with and without the UV and could not see a difference in quality. So I still use a UV filter on my "L" lens. To expensive to take the chance of scratching it.

jpochard

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

04/27/2005 10:35:50 AM · #8

Okay...I got to thinking more about this and called my home insurance agent. For a grand total of $11.40 a year, my entire photographic equipment (I valued it at $1,000) is covered with no deductable. I specifically asked about dropping, etc. She said it is covered for ANY loss.

So now, I will breathe easier with no UV.

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/27/2005 10:44:29 AM · #9

FWIW, I use UV filters on my lenses. I once tipped my tripod over (from a low height)while on a hike and dented and scratched the filter--bye, bye filter but the lens was fine. I took the filter off and continued shooting...very convenient as I was miles from any store and expense and time would have prevented my replacing the lens for a week or more.
(Guess I'm not that picky about the degradation a little glass might make--but then I wear glasses for seeing on my priceless eyes, too.)

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/27/2005 10:54:29 AM · #10

I use them.

But, I also am in manuel mode, and use a light meter.

Life may be a risk, but my wallet does not see it that way.

saiphfire

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/27/2005 11:08:48 AM · #11

I use them on all my lenses, but my dog commonly snuffles them with his nose, I get water on them, etc. It's not like my photos are quality enough that this makes the difference and I'm kind of poor so I'm not taking any chances :)

ganders

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/27/2005 11:17:53 AM · #12

We have them on our lenses; I figure it's a lot cheaper to replace a UV filter than a lens.

Plus, if the front gets really covered in sea spray or something, I'm not bothered about running the filter under the tap to get some of the salt off!

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

04/27/2005 01:22:26 PM · #13

On all lenses.
Why> because I like to wipe the front clean without thinking to much about scratching something really expensive. When someone sneezes I want to take of the crap with my dirty sneezecloth, regardless of dust and sand particles that are on it etc etc etc.

The argument of $12 piece of glass on a $ 1000+ lens is rubbish. The 77mm Hoya HMC filter on my $1500 lens is $40, if you are even more serious you'd use a Hoya SMC or B+W HMC 2C ($75). I don't see someone who invests so much cash in a lens trying to save a buck with a Hoya Green label or some obscure piece of crap of $ 6.00 or 12.00

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

04/27/2005 01:28:18 PM · #14

Originally posted by jpochard:

How long does it take to repair or replace the camera? Perhaps you have a very important shoot, like someone hired you or asked you to take photos at dad's 80th birthday. Darn, those kids accidentilly pushed the tripod over and now the lens is damaged.... Where to get another camera / lens? Perhaps the whole thing is a wreck, but it is just an example.
Or your partner by accident pushes it off the computer table. DPC just had this challenge up and you had the winning idea. Too bad the camera is at Sony repair for the nexth month (that's perhaps just my bad, very bad experiences with Sony service)...

Discraft

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC for Canon

04/27/2005 01:29:12 PM · #15

I used to use... but my filter might been a cheap one and the photos would come out soft now i am not using any filter...

So for those who use filters please fell free to share what filters do you use... the brand and the model.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

04/27/2005 01:36:15 PM · #16

she asked for an opinion ... i gave mine. i wasn't making an argument. feel free to wrap your camera in bubble wrap if you want ... i don't, but it's ok to disagree.

Originally posted by Azrifel:

The argument of $12 piece of glass on a $ 1000+ lens is rubbish.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

04/27/2005 01:56:33 PM · #17

Huge debate about this topic... Personally I can see both sides being valid. I do not have a UV filter on my L lens but I do however keep one on my Tamron wide angle. The reason? They put it on when I was at the shop and it's keeping the lens glass nice. The L lens however already has dust and some blemishes. Also the blemishes never really affect the pictures away unless something big happens. Keep your lens hoods on and you get a lot of protection from them. Sometimes that's just about as good as a UV filter. The other lenses I have do not have UV filters for the reason that I don't feel like spending money to protect a $75 or lower value lens :-P

cghubbell

Nikon D300

04/27/2005 01:58:41 PM · #18

When I'm shooting in fairly controlled circumstances I tend to avoid filters unless I have a reason for them. In many cases you won't be able to tell the difference. In others, you may find a small anomoly shows up when its too late and you can't retake the shot. As stated earlier, a good hood will provide nearly the same protection with no degradation of image at all.

As a counter example, I went to Niagara Falls a while back. Anyone who's been there knows that you need your windshield wipers on just to drive near it because so much mist is in the air. My UV filter was on for that location, and a good thing. It took fluid and persistance to remove the dried residue. I don't like dried goo on my good lenses, but a "disposable" ProMaster UV filter doesn't worry me a bit.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

04/27/2005 02:01:52 PM · #19

Originally posted by hopper:

she asked for an opinion ... i gave mine. i wasn't making an argument. feel free to wrap your camera in bubble wrap if you want ... i don't, but it's ok to disagree.

Originally posted by Azrifel:
The argument of $12 piece of glass on a $ 1000+ lens is rubbish.

I envy those people who have used lenses so long that paint has chipped of, hoods are dented, scratches everywhere... :)

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

04/27/2005 02:07:07 PM · #20

Originally posted by Azrifel:

Originally posted by hopper:
she asked for an opinion ... i gave mine. i wasn't making an argument. feel free to wrap your camera in bubble wrap if you want ... i don't, but it's ok to disagree.

Originally posted by Azrifel:
The argument of $12 piece of glass on a $ 1000+ lens is rubbish.

I envy those people who have used lenses so long that paint has chipped of, hoods are dented, scratches everywhere... :)

fotodude

Nikon D70

04/27/2005 02:08:07 PM · #21

i put a UV haze on my lens the day i bought the camera and even though i take it off to switch it out with my polorizer my lens is clean as the day it came from the factory......
i have a sepret UV for every lense i own and i will not change my mind it does not compormise the qoulity of the image as much as ppl. say

+think of it this way a new UV is like $24 if u buy the qoulity that i do and if not its like $12.....a new lense............i think u get the idea.......if i scratch the filter it stays on untill i throw it away and have a replacment in my hand....if i scratch a lens.....

_brando_

fotodude

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

04/27/2005 02:14:11 PM · #22

Originally posted by hopper:

i can't argue with you there. i always wanted to be the guy that used my gear so much, it looked like it's been thru a war. i see photo's of guys waist deep in muck in some swamp taking pictures of a frog and all i feel is envy

perhaps much of my point of view comes from the fact that my stuff isn't worthy of protection :) my most expensive lens cost me $160.00. hopefully that'll change this summer.

Originally posted by Azrifel:

Originally posted by hopper:
she asked for an opinion ... i gave mine. i wasn't making an argument. feel free to wrap your camera in bubble wrap if you want ... i don't, but it's ok to disagree.

Originally posted by Azrifel:
The argument of $12 piece of glass on a $ 1000+ lens is rubbish.

I envy those people who have used lenses so long that paint has chipped of, hoods are dented, scratches everywhere... :)

hehe i know 1 of those guys he keeps a a UV of his lens at all times....he trained me that way......
he has a nikon that took a bullet for him in Nam. and he droped a pentex out of a chopper over 100 feet in the air he said the shutter fired but the camera was (pun intended) shot.......

anyway his stuff was through a war now he only shoots 4x5 and 8x10.....but the only thing i will say is although the black coting on his nikormatt and f1 wore off and turned to a brassy yellow his lenses where still cristel clear opticaly........

if u want u can ask him.... call the wolf camera in evanston-(my boss might get made if i show the # i don't know but u can look it up online) and ask for Richard he might not be in today though i for get the schedual i'm only working there on saturdays

_brando_

*edit took out #

Message edited by author 2005-04-27 14:19:33.

jpochard

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

04/27/2005 02:16:16 PM · #23

I guess I can see both sides. Regardless of UV or no UV, I am glad I found out about the insurance. Inconvenience is one thing...not being able to replace the camera at all due to finances would be a nightmare! Plus, it will obviously cover much more than just the lens issues.

Still..I may experiment with the filter I have to see if I notice any difference. If not, I guess I see no reason to keep it off.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/27/2005 02:27:11 PM · #24

Originally posted by jpochard:

I have my camera equipment declared on my homeowner's policy so if it is stolen or is damaged in a calamity it will be covered... but I would never consider making a claim for damage such as a drop, etc. Risking being dropped because of that type of claim is not worth it. Many insurance companies drop policies for the smallest excuses.