# UV filters--Good or bad?



## crawdaddio (Jan 27, 2006)

I just got a very sweet nikon 24mm-120mm AFs ED VR. I love this lens. Any way, My question is about using a UV filter for protection. I had UV filters on my other lenses for a little while (50mm 1.8, 70-300mm 4), but I noticed quite a bit of flaring, so I took them off. I shoot outdoors ALOT and this new lens' glass is very close to outer ring (exposed), I am worried about scratching, cracking, damaging it---it was very expensive (for me). I haven't noticed any flaring yet, but does the UV filter degrade the image at all? What's the better of the trade off--protection and possible image degradation/flaring--or no protection and crisper images (if this is even the case, hence my question)?
Advice from some folks who have been through all this before would be fantastic. Such as all you fine people here on TPF

Thanks,
~DC


----------



## Digital Matt (Jan 27, 2006)

I'd be more inclined to get a lens hood.  Did it come with one?  Usually for wide angle lenses, a petal type hood is used.


----------



## cecilc (Jan 27, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I'd be more inclined to get a lens hood.



I agree with Mr. Matt ....

I've got lens hoods for every lens I own ....

But I don't have any filter on any lens I own ....


----------



## Rob (Jan 27, 2006)

I haven't really noticed a difference with having a UV filter on (I did pay a lot for a Nikon branded one though). I've given up on them as they tended for some reason to get stains on them a lot. I've never yet damaged a primary element, but it all depends on you as a person.

Lens hoods are essential for outdoor photography, the difference they make is huge, especially with zooms like the 70-200 or 28-70 type lengths.

Rob


----------



## Harpua (Jan 27, 2006)

Wow I am learning so much here. I always thought that you were supposed to keep the UV on at all times. Now I see that is not always the case.

As I am still new to all of this I will probably keep using it as I don't think my eye can tell the difference with out without it so I might as well get the protection that it offers, but I hope to one day have an eye as good as all of you so I can see the difference.


----------



## PachelbelsCanon350D (Jan 27, 2006)

Harpua said:
			
		

> Wow I am learning so much here. I always thought that you were supposed to keep the UV on at all times. Now I see that is not always the case.


I learned the same thing only yesterday. This is a wonderful and informative forum isn't it??


----------



## crawdaddio (Jan 27, 2006)

I do have a petal type hood that came with it that I use. I am a very careful person, so I'm not TOO worried about it. So, does anyone know if the UV filter when attached is more prone to lens flare and/or image quality/clarity reduction? (I am using Tiffen BTW)

Thanks alot for all the good info here.....................

~DC


----------



## Harpua (Jan 27, 2006)

PachelbelsCanon350D said:
			
		

> This is a wonderful and informative forum isn't it??


It sure is!!!


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 27, 2006)

Any time you add something for the light to pass through, you are probably degrading the image quality.  That's just common sense, but with a good quality filter, it's nothing to really worry about.

Lens flares are more likely with a filter....there is just more reflective/refractive surface for light to bounce around on.  Stacking filters can really bring on the flares.  As mentioned, using a lens hood while outside can really make a difference.  Besides a hood, I always try to use my hand or a hat to block direct sunlight from hitting the lens.


----------



## photobug (Jan 27, 2006)

I have both a 500mm mirror lens and a 300mm meduim format lens that I shoot on my dslr. In both cases they had UV filters attached, the mirror mostly to keep me from having to clean that goofy front element & the 300 because it came with one (112mm).

I found that except at very close ranges the pics taken with either were unacceptably unsharp. I figured out it was the UV filter by accident. While removing the lens cap (screw on) for the 300 I inadvertently removed the filter as well.

Lo and behold the pics are much sharper without the filter. Tried it on the mirror with the same result. I have no idea why this might be. The mirror works fine on film, so I suspect it's something to do with the AA filter in a dslr.

I don't use any screw in filters except for a polarizer, for any other effects I want I use a Cokin holder/filters. I always use a lens hood with either the lens cap or a neoprene hood hat to protect the lens as I move around.

I've never had a problem scratching a lens without a UV filter on it.


----------



## JTHphoto (Jan 27, 2006)

i usually have a uv filter or polarizer on my camera about 80% of the time. I just like it because it keeps the lens cleaner and protected... i'm paranoid about scuffing it up... of course i think anyone will tell you, the more glass in front of your lens, the greater the opportunity for decreased clarity/image quality.  I am very amateur so i don't really notice the difference between with/without filters, but i'm not using expensive lenses either... 

if you do use a uv filter, i'd remove it for night photography, i use to get ghost images on my negatives...  

i didn't like using hoods because of the vignetting, but i just learned something new too...





			
				Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Usually for wide angle lenses, a petal type hood is used.


 thanks, Matt!


----------



## markc (Jan 27, 2006)

JTHphoto said:
			
		

> i didn't like using hoods because of the vignetting, but i just learned something new too... thanks, Matt!


Yeah, the lens hood should be specific to the lens you are using so that it doesn't obscure anything.


----------



## crawdaddio (Jan 27, 2006)

Wow, thank you very much guys, it has helped alot. I think I'll can the filter and use the hood.

Rock on......................


----------



## JTHphoto (Jan 27, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> Yeah, the lens hood should be specific to the lens you are using so that it doesn't obscure anything.


 
i feel a little foolish, because i have seen those around, never knowing what they were called, and not realizing they had a specific function... i just thought they looked funky and wasn't going to put one on my camera...    now i'm going to have find one because that would definitely help...


----------



## Jen (Jan 29, 2006)

I wouldn't be quite so afraid of scratching my lens if I didn't always loose my lens caps!  I even tried the elastic thing to hold them on, but then when that gets in the way and I take it off for a few shots... lost again!  

I will have to try some shots with and without the uv filter to see if I notice a difference.  I do definitly notice a difference when using my lens hood though. Very nice indeed.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jan 29, 2006)

UV filters are largely a waste of space. There are only a few situations in which they actually work and even then you have to know what you are looking for to see any difference.
People put them on to 'protect the lens' but as long as you take reasonable care (about the same amount of care you take crossing the road) then you shouldn't damage the lens anyway.
UV filters are just one more layer of glass to keep clean and increase the chances of lens flare - flare being far more noticeable than the effect of having a UV filter on.
You would be wiser using the right lens hood and keeping hold of the lens cap.


----------



## Fate (Jan 30, 2006)

I use a UV filter on my Lumix FZ5...... mostly just for the fact that it protects my lens..


----------



## emo (Jan 30, 2006)

Does UV filter can eliminate haze when shooting landscape? & if not, which filter can do that??


----------



## Rob (Jan 31, 2006)

emo said:
			
		

> Does UV filter can eliminate haze when shooting landscape? & if not, which filter can do that??



That's what it's designed to do, they also call them haze and skylight filters which gives another clue to the puzzle.

IMO they make very little difference. This is based on having spent a fortune on a couple for my Nikon primes in order to protect them. In the end, I took them off and threw them in the bucket of stuff I don't use. They really don't help picture wise.

Rob


----------



## kemplefan (Jan 31, 2006)

uv filter is good but not as your onley filter ge ta sky light and get a filter latter


----------



## BernieSC (Feb 3, 2006)

its like praying may not make a difference but it can't hurt none. On the other hand if you smacked the front of your lens would you rather replace a lens costing hundreds of dollars or a $12 filter?  They mainly protect the front of the lens but they do have a coating on them to filter out some UV haze.


----------

