# Is it ok to keep a UV filter on, all the time?



## chrisv2 (Mar 19, 2012)

Somehow I had parked in my memory the idea that it was a good to keep a UV filter on my camera, at all times.  To keep the underlying lens from getting dirty.

Is that "ok" or am I going to be screwing up my photos now?  If it's not ok -- is there some sort of "neutral" filter that you can keep on a lens all the time, to keep it from collecting dirt/dust?

Sorry for the seemingly stupid question...I am a total newbie at this.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 19, 2012)

It's not doing any favors for your image quality, I can assure you of that (unless it's a high end UV filter). 

Personally, I've never used a UV filter and never will.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 19, 2012)

That is actually a very common thing to do.  

A UV filter is practically useless on a digital camera, because they aren't designed to be sensitive to UV light.  But the filters are pretty much clear to visible light, which is why people use them as protection filters.  
I believe they do make clear protection (window) filters, but UV filters are just more common.  

Protecting you lens does make sense, it's much better to replace a filter, than to repair or replace a whole lens.  On the other hand, modern lenses  are pretty resilient and can take a lot of cleaning without being scratched up.  

On the down side, the more glass you put in front of your lens, the more chance you have of degrading the image quality, causing lens flare etc.  

Personally, I don't use UV filters for protection.  I try to keep a hard lens hood on my lenses when shooting, which offers some protection.


----------



## chrisv2 (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm thinking of trying a B+W filter...I'm really paranoid about my lens getting dirt, water, dust or whatever (or scratched).


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 19, 2012)

Looks like you've got some great replies! If your looking for more, I'd recommend giving the search function a try, this question has been asked many times


----------



## brush (Mar 19, 2012)

Here's the photo that convinced me to take the UV filter off my lens permanently.




IMG_7404 by Bill Rush, on Flickr


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 19, 2012)

brush said:


> Here's the photo that convinced me to take the UV filter off my lens permanently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep. That's a great reason.


----------



## Forkie (Mar 20, 2012)

I've never used one and all my lenses are fine.  I'm even guilty of cleaning my lens elements with a finger in my sleeve.  They're tougher than you think!  If you're really worried, stick a lens hood on.


----------



## g-fi (Mar 20, 2012)

Wicked lens flare convinced me to take mine off. Lenses are designed to take some abuse, I co-sign on the lens hood suggestion if you're concerned about damage to the lens, but IMO extra glass in front of your glass is only a good idea if you truly truly NEED it (polarizer/ND filter) and after that it should come off. I ended up really pissed at myself with images that I couldn't recreate later on that were ruined by the flare from the UV filter on my 50mm. Never again!


----------



## SCraig (Mar 20, 2012)

Been using them on all my lenses for many years and will continue to do so.  They are just like insurance to me and I'll continue to pay the premium.


----------



## Overread (Mar 20, 2012)

It's important to remember that a UV filter will only ever protect against light dust/grains and liquids. It offers no protection at all against larger projectiles and, because UV filters are made with very thin glass, they are highly likely to shatter upon impact. This  causes a lot of problems because glass is very abrasive and all that shattered UV filter is going to go right back and scrape all over your front element so it still takes damage. 

So against sand, dusts, saltspray, oily/dirty fingers a filter is a great protection and in extreme environments I'd use one so I could fast wipe the lens clean and keep shooting without a worry.


In addition always go for a high quality filter, it won't be cheap, but it will minimise the degradation to the optical quality and also reduce flaring as much as possible. Cheap UV filters are nothing but trouble.


----------



## RoyWilson (Mar 20, 2012)

I started using a kenko Zeta Uv filter, there are hardly any reflections at all, expensive but worth it. It looks like a metal ring with no glass at all, because there are minimal reflections.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 20, 2012)

Never been one on my glass and never will, and i tote some glass that would hurt my feelings if damaged.


----------



## usayit (Mar 20, 2012)

brush said:


> Here's the photo that convinced me to take the UV filter off my lens permanently.



You should know and remove the filter in situations like that.  Filters are like anything else...  use them when you actually intend to.  Nothing is a leave and forget.

I use filters for protection.   I only use the highest quality.  My lenses are extremely expensive and difficult to replace.  They are also stored in my bag without front and rear caps.  I also don't carry a lens cloth.. waist of time.

I dropped two lenses in my lifetime.   Once was when I was fumbling around with the darn lens caps.  Second time, the filter did actually protect the front element (filter ring bent, shattered and aperture ring had to repaired).  I also shoot with a few vintage lenses... known to have soft front elements.

On the other hand, I have other lenses that wouldn't be expensive nor difficult to replace AND it gets expensive filters of different sizes... those don't have filters.


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Mar 20, 2012)

>>>>[h=2]Is it ok to keep a UV filter on, all the time?[/h]<<<<

If you are planning to NOT use your lens cap, sure.........


----------



## molested_cow (Mar 20, 2012)

I have it on all the time. If I am getting bad lens flare or ghost, I will just take the filter off and retake the shot.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 20, 2012)

Never put them on any of my lens.  Maybe a CPL or ND filter.


----------



## MReid (Mar 20, 2012)

Only time you may conceivably need a uv filter is if you are at the ocean on a windy day and want to keep salt spray off your lens or if you are working in an environment like motorcross or rodeo where rocks could get tossed into your lens.

If my lens gets dirty I breath on it and wipe it off with a cotton shirt, good to go. I leave my lens cap on all the time, even between shots.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 20, 2012)

I use them like 99% of the time, because I prefer to keep stuff off the front element.  I walk around a lot outside with the lenscap off (it takes long enough to get the camera to my eye for some shots, never mind reaching inside the hood and taking a cap off), and I shoot in active kitchens, and I frequently have pet noses bumping the lens, so it's a peace of mind thing for me.  Maybe the front elements can take it, maybe not.  I did do a flare test, and concluded that on most of my lenses, with Heliopan SH-PMC or B+W MRC Nano UV's, no additional flare was visible most of the time.  My Tokina 11-16 likes to flare, and filters make it worse, even good ones, so I take the filter off when it's relevant.  But, for my 24, 35, and 50, I really need to make an effort to get flare, and having the filter on doesn't seem to make any difference.


----------



## Dao (Mar 20, 2012)

- I do not use UV filter.
- I do have UV filters (bought the lens used and it came with the lens.  BW, Hoya etc)
- I do not see any issue so far with my lens without filters
- I think if buying a $100 plus filter to protect a $600 or less lens do not make sense (at least to me).  Get a $30 or less filter ... may as well don't get it.  I'd rather buy a $30 steak dinner.
- I do respect others who use them.  It is just not for me.


----------



## KmH (Mar 20, 2012)

Lens protection is way more about using good lens/camera handeling technique and the proper lens cleaning methods and tools.

Filters (clear or UV) used for 'protection' cause more problems than they solve. The filters increase the occurance of lens flare becuase of the additional air gap they add to the lens, and reduce image contrast to some extent.

A TPF member posted a thread a couple of months ago - She dropped her lens and the UV filter she had on it for 'protection' shattered. One of the sharp shards of thin, easily broken UV filter glass gouged the very lens it was supposed to 'protect'. Her story is far from unique and similar 1st person stories have been repeated on other forums from time to time. Sorry, I can't find the thread.
Often the issue is the inability to remove a shattered UV filter from the lens, because the filter body has bent and is jammed in the lens filter threads. - http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ens-pouring-rain-today-filter-stuck-lens.html

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ed-nikon-d700-camea-lens-saved-uv-filter.html

Check out this article from a lens rental business about scratched lenses - LensRentals.com - Front Element Scratches

and watch this video:


----------



## apples (Mar 20, 2012)

i recently used one to shoot some streets during the st. paddys parades, didnt notice a massive dropoff in quality and my glass was clean throught the entire day (drunk guys and beer everywhere).

UV filter used for its designed purpose: near useless.
used for protection: use at your own discretion.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 20, 2012)

I used to have B+W UV-Filters on my lenses, but with the advent of digital I gave up on that. Often a Lens hood offers some extra protection!

I do outdoor photography where you run into many nasty branches, sand and all that ... and I never had a problem with a lens getting damaged.

Only once I ruined an expensive gradient filter as it was blown onto a rock in heavy wind. But that is a different story


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 20, 2012)

I'll stay out of the filter/no filter debate and say that if you choose to keep it on all the time I would make sure you can take it off every once in a while.  I've seen countless threads of people that have left them on so long they get stuck.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 20, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> I'll stay out of the filter/no filter debate and say that if you choose to keep it on all the time I would make sure you can take it off every once in a while.  I've seen countless threads of people that have left them on so long they get stuck.



This is also quality related.  The aluminum rings are much more likely to seize than the brass ones.


----------



## brush (Mar 20, 2012)

I know the internet is no place for logic...but don't you guys think if a  UV filter was meant to protect your lens, it would be called a lens  shield instead of a UV filter? Things aren't arbitrarily named on  cameras...the polarizing filter blocks light in a polarized pattern. The neutral density  filter blocks light at a neutral density. The UV filter blocks UV  light. The gadget bag holds gadgets. Crazy how they define these things,  isn't it?

My thought, as crazy as it may sound, use your equipment for what its  intended and it'll serve you well. Every time UV light is going to  damage your shot, go right ahead  & put a UV filter on your camera (aka never). Every time the glare of a cars  paint is screwing up your shot, put a circular polarizing filter on  & filter out the glare. Every time you need to stop down the light a bit, put an ND filter on. 

So many people say they're using filters to protect their lens, I use this thing that I treat like sort of an insurance  policy for my lenses...it's called an insurance policy. For $35 a year  all my photog gear is covered against damage theft accident water fire  stupidity defect or anything else. It's like a policy that insures my gear...what would you call a thing like that?


----------



## Dao (Mar 20, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > I'll stay out of the filter/no filter debate and say that if you choose to keep it on all the time I would make sure you can take it off every once in a while.  I've seen countless threads of people that have left them on so long they get stuck.
> ...



I also heard someone use pencil to write/rub on the filter thread before put the filter on to act as a lubricant for easy filter removal later.


----------



## Tee (Mar 20, 2012)

brush said:


> So many people say they're using filters to protect their lens, I use this thing that I treat like sort of an insurance  policy for my lenses...it's called an insurance policy. For $35 a year  all my photog gear is covered against damage theft accident water fire  stupidity defect or anything else. It's like a policy that insures my gear...what would you call a thing like that?



I completely agree on your thoughts of using the gear for what it's intended for.  However, many camera shops/ Best Buy use the $10 UV filter purchase as a selling point for protecting your lens.  The buyer doesn't really learn what a UV filter is for only that it'll protect the outside of your lens.  That's what they remember.


----------



## usayit (Mar 20, 2012)

The concept of using a UV filter to protect lenses has been around for decades before digital.... its pure semantics at that point and really doesnt change anything.  Its for the same reason that we still talk of FOV in terms of the well known 35mm/135 negative.  The same reason why in the US we can say driveway and people automatically know its for parking.  etc...

I wish I can insure my gear against any and all damage no matter how small for only $35.   My homeowners insurance policy for the items stored at home are several times that.


----------



## chrisv2 (Mar 21, 2012)

Thanks for all the replies - I think I get it now.  I need a second UV filter to protect the first UV filter, which is protecting my lens!

(just kidding)

I'm a total newbie to photography but I do understand the concept that less is better in terms of pieces of glass between the silicon and the subject being photographed...I will try to live without a UV filter and be careful about handling my camera.  I also have a lens hood so maybe that's a good enough answer.


----------



## rkt (Mar 21, 2012)

I used to do that same, in fact pick a filter with a new lens till I noticed that some of my pictures got some artifacts due to internal reflection between the filter and the front element ... it also affects the IQ to a certain extent (depends on the quality of filter as well). 

Now I just ensure I keep the lens hood on for protection, and leave the filters at home ... unless I know it will be used in very dusty/dirty conditions ...


----------



## Crollo (Mar 21, 2012)

People saying shattered filters don't protect the lens: Nobody's saying a UV filter will protect your lens *from a freaking smash to the front element.* However, small dirt particles, water, and small scratches _are_&#8203; the form of 'protection' that people look into UV filters for. Using a lens hood to protect the front element from these cases is irrational.


----------



## sovietdoc (Mar 21, 2012)

I used to use a UV filter at all times on my old camera.  Then I took it off (after years of use) and compared the difference.

I will now have to reshoot all places I've shot with the filter on.  And I am never putting a filter on my glass again.



> However, small dirt particles, water, and small scratches _are_&#8203; the form of 'protection' that people look into UV filters for



Or you could just get a better lens.  Most L glass is pretty nicely sealed from water and dust.  And you should never get scratches on your lens.  If you do, then you didn't handle it well.

Why spend big bucks on expensive glass for all that contrast and sharpness, and then waste it by putting a cheap UV filter on the front?

Of weather sealed glass cost too much for your pocket, you can just always be careful.  I've used my old 17-85 for years and I've shot with it in the heavy rain multiple times.  When I sold it, it had 0 scratches and was in perfect condition.  It all depends on the care that you take of our equipment.


----------



## brush (Mar 22, 2012)

usayit said:


> I wish I can insure my gear against any and all damage no matter how small for only $35.   My homeowners insurance policy for the items stored at home are several times that.



Check with the agent who underwrites your home owner policy about something called an "inland marine" policy. After my whole rant about things being named what they do...this blows my theory out of the water unfortunately. It has nothing to do with boats. They write inland marine policies for jewelry, camera gear, musical instruments, bikes, etc. etc. etc. Based on the risk assessment of the items you're insuring, the price changes. Funny thing is for some reason a camera is very low risk, apparently they haven't seen my pictures of waterfalls canyons or mountain bikes.  insuring my mountain bike would've cost 10 times the camera, and they're the same value! It's a separate policy from your homeowners, which is why it protects you against so much more theft loss & damage, and for a greater amount than the itemized coverage within your home owners, AND it has no deductible, AND if you have to make a claim on it, your homeowner rates won't go up. 

...AND If you take long exposure pictures at night with insurance still on your camera, it won't create lens flare.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2012)

Crollo said:


> People saying shattered filters don't protect the lens: Nobody's saying a UV filter will protect your lens *from a freaking smash to the front element.* However, small dirt particles, water, and small scratches _are_&#8203; the form of 'protection' that people look into UV filters for. Using a lens hood to protect the front element from these cases is irrational.


small dirt particles? water? they do nothing to your front element .... and small scratches you get from something scratching you lens. here a lens hood can help! at least outdoor.


----------



## photographyxfactor (Mar 23, 2012)

Filters can sometimes  cause flaring - ghosting - those effects are cut down or don't exist with hood.A filter is easier to replace than clean a lens .[ why I carry at least 2 ]
Most filters are cheaper to replace than lenses .


----------



## usayit (Mar 23, 2012)

brush said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I can insure my gear against any and all damage no matter how small for only $35.   My homeowners insurance policy for the items stored at home are several times that.
> ...



IIRC it was named after the Act from which it came from.   

I have checked into it... it covers extended accidental damage but not damage due to use.   Its the difference between a laptop that has been dropped versus scratches from use.   It also came out quite expensive because of the amount I would need to be insured.  Ever since ditching the caps, not worrying so much, and using filters, I have yet to have a situation which an insurance policy as such would be useful.    Theft (out and during storage at home) on the other hand is covered (one reason why I generally don't carry a bag made specifically for cameras).  

I have never had flare problems nor image quality issues...  I use filters properly.  I admit, it is ~not~ a leave on and forget item.   So to answer the OP's question, No its not something you leave on ALL THE TIME.   But assuming you have good quality filters, its ok to leave it on most of the time.   I also agree... there's no reason to put a low quality glass in front of a high quality optic; especially uncoated glass.   That's like shooting through a window.  If you choose to use filters, use quality that matches the optic.


----------



## Gaerek (Mar 23, 2012)

Crollo said:


> People saying shattered filters don't protect the lens: Nobody's saying a UV filter will protect your lens *from a freaking smash to the front element.* However, small dirt particles, water, and small scratches _are_&#8203; the form of 'protection' that people look into UV filters for. Using a lens hood to protect the front element from these cases is irrational.



Here's an experiment.

1. Set your camera on a tripod. 
2. Take a picture of something. 
3. Tape a thread or piece low lb test fishing line so it touches near the center of your front lens element.
4. Take a picture of the same something.
5. Compare the two shots.

Chances are, you will not see a difference between the two shots. Stopped down as far as you can go (f/22) you _might _see something. Dust, fingerprints, even small scratches will not noticeably affect the image quality of most shots. A filter, even the good, expensive ones, WILL, in many cases make a noticeable impact on your shot. UV filters do nothing good for the final image of a digital camera. When digital cameras started being more and more popular, camera shops had an excessive number of UV filters (which did have a use in the film days) that they needed to sell. So rather than selling them as UV filters, they would try to upsell them as a "lens protector." Sicne camera shops realized there's a sucker born every minute, and they didn't have a bridge to sell, they realized they could make an additional few bucks with every camera sale if they either included one in a package deal, or just sold it as a nesesary item.

I live in an area of the country known for its rain. Using a lens hood eliminates most of the rain drops from hitting the front element, but they still get there. I have yet to see an image where a few rain drops have affected the final image. Certainly, the times when the front element was covered in rain, it made an impact...but guess what, the "lens protector" will have the same problem, and since it's further out than the front element, it will be more prone to attracting those errant drops of rain. So in those cases, a "lens protector" is still worse than using nothing but a lens hood.

Here's a new idea. Realize that you are carrying a very expensive, piece of precision equipment and treat it like what it is.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 23, 2012)

For the in focus part of the image, you will not notice small blemishes, or even medium sized ones on a front element.  The bokeh is another story however...  Shoot wide open with a blurred background, and each "bokeh ball" around a highlight will be a precise map of every speck of dust and scratch on your lens...


----------



## Crollo (Mar 23, 2012)

You can smash your entire front element to hell and it still will only barely show up in the images.















 So why bother protecting your lens at all, why care about keeping it clean?




> Certainly, the times when the front element was covered in rain, it made an impact...


 
Yeah, and guess what? You just unscrew the filter and suddenly you don't have to spend 2 minutes wiping down your front element, dealing with the now grease-like coating!


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 23, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> brush said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the photo that convinced me to take the UV filter off my lens permanently.
> ...



Sorry---what is the reason?  What am I missing?


----------



## Gaerek (Mar 23, 2012)

Crollo said:


> You can smash your entire front element to hell and it still will only barely show up in the images.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, those pictures prove my point. Front element damage, especially minor front element damage (you know, the kind you mentioned the filter being useful against) isn't going to make an impact on IQ. So, thanks for posting that and shooting your argument down. I was actually going to post it, but didn't feel like looking for it. You did the work for me.

Second of all, with regards to the rain, the OP wanted to know if it's something that can be used all the time. There are certainly circumstances where a "protection filter" can come in handy. I listened to a podcast a couple years ago, can't remember which one, where one of the photographers was going to be in the Sahara for a couple weeks. He knew it would likely be windy and he didn't want his front elements sand blasted, especially on his L glass. So he bought 2 or 3 "protection filters" for each of his lenses for use while he was there. He said he spent somewhere around $1200 on them. But since he had ended up having to throw away many sand blasted filters, he figures he saved around $8000 on lens replacements or an increase in his insurance premium. Now before you say this anecdote proves your point, it doesn't. Rain and blowing sand are two possible uses for protection filters. Just like I wouldn't use a polarizer in many circumstances, I won't use a protection filter in many circumstances. It still shows that you shouldn't use your filter in every circumstance.

And lets add to the rain situation. What happens when your filter loads up with rain? Or right, you're back to bare front element now. You had to spend time removing the filter, which if you're prepared, is about the same amount of time or longer, actually (trust me, I've done it both ways...I shoot in the rain A LOT) it takes to quickly wipe the front element off and get back to shooting. You don't need to spend 2 minutes ensuring there's no more water or streaks on your front element. You just need to dry the big drops off. Takes literally 5 seconds if you have a dry cloth in your pocket. Not only that, a UV filter loads up with rain about three times as fast as your front element will, since it is usually sticking out significantly further.

Are there times where a "protection filter" can be useful? Sure, there is. Just like there are times when a polarizer or ND filter can be useful. But in the long run, the "protection filter" will hurt your shots more than help. And the OP didn't want to know about specific uses of a "protection filter," he wanted to know if it's bad to have it on all the time.

Let me put it another way. I have yet to see an incident, either personally experienced, or online, where a "protection filter" actually prevented damage that would affect the IQ of the lens. However, I have seen dozens, if not hundreds of examples where a UV filter, by itself affected the IQ of the lens. Pretty obvious which the better all around choice is. Let me quote myself here, to drive home the point:



			
				gaerek said:
			
		

> Realize that you are carrying a very expensive, piece of precision equipment and treat it like what it is.



Follow this, and you'll minimize damage to your gear. Period.


----------



## Dao (Mar 23, 2012)

UV filter is like Pink color.  Some people like it, some don't.  It does not mean they are wrong, it is just a different perference.

If that make you feel comfortable and convience, use it.  It not, don't use it.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 23, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > brush said:
> ...



You're missing the "Tilt A Whirl" sign with all the ghosting around it.


----------



## Gaerek (Mar 23, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



But Tyler, that's artistic! :roll:


----------

