# Do you use a UV filter?



## Moglex (Jul 12, 2009)

There have been some pretty dogmatic statements on the "You should Never use Any filters, except" thread.

I wondered what the consensus was amongst members here.


----------



## Montana (Jul 12, 2009)

You don't have the option i would choose in your poll.  

Yes, but only when in extremely dusty/wet environments.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 12, 2009)

UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.

The sensor/sensor-filter in most DSLR's are not sensitive to wavelengths below 400nm ... so a UV filter's only purpose on Digital Camera's is for protection only.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 12, 2009)

Montana said:


> You don't have the option i would choose in your poll.
> 
> Yes, but only when in extremely dusty/wet environments.



Perhaps a kindly mod would add an option: "Yes, but only in particularly hazardous conditions".


----------



## Moglex (Jul 12, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.
> 
> The sensor/sensor-filter in most DSLR's are not sensitive to wavelengths below 400nm ... so a UV filter's only purpose on Digital Camera's is for protection only.



This poll is not limited to digital camera users.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Jul 12, 2009)

I'm afraid I never use a UV filter . Do I get a smack now?

Nah, I really just don't think it's worth it. I suppose that if I was shooting in rain/sand/snow a lot, then yes, I would invest in a high-quality one, or possibly just a protection filter. I use my CPL for counteracting haze.


----------



## christm (Jul 12, 2009)

Yes - All time time, on any lens I use. Sometimes I use a polarizing filter to bring out colour etc.. where appropriate.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 12, 2009)

...Don't even own one.


----------



## rubbertree (Jul 12, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.
> 
> The sensor/sensor-filter in most DSLR's are not sensitive to wavelengths below 400nm ... so a UV filter's only purpose on Digital Camera's is for protection only.



Yet we get information to the contrary to this all the time. Wish I knew what to believe.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 12, 2009)

rubbertree said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.
> ...



Don't the coatings on modern lenses eliminate the need for UV filters too?
...So even with film, you wouldn't really need one.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 12, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Don't the coatings on modern lenses eliminate the need for UV filters too?



Do you have a source for that?

I hadn't heard.

Not that that means anything.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 12, 2009)

Moglex said:


> Perhaps a kindly mod would add an option: "Yes, but only in particularly hazardous conditions".



Is that good for you? :mrgreen:


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 12, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Don't the coatings on modern lenses eliminate the need for UV filters too?



Why, do they drop test them these days?


----------



## Moglex (Jul 12, 2009)

Chris of Arabia said:


> Moglex said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps a kindly mod would add an option: "Yes, but only in particularly hazardous conditions".
> ...



Yes, spot on, thank you.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 12, 2009)

Well you can scratch the vote for:*Yes, but only to counteract UV haze*

Add a vote for: *Yes, but only in particularly hazardous conditions 		 		 	*

The choice wasn't offered when I voted so I chose the closest thing.


----------



## Andrew Boyd (Jul 12, 2009)

At the prices of lens glass, I've always thought you'd be nuts not to have a filter on. And as to the UV/film/digital issue, there are filters made specifically for digital sensors now that will do the trick.
TheDiscerningPhotographer


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jul 12, 2009)

Andrew Boyd said:


> At the prices of lens glass, I've always thought you'd be nuts not to have a filter on. And as to the UV/film/digital issue, there are filters made specifically for digital sensors now that will do the trick.
> TheDiscerningPhotographer



What, exactly, are your UV filters protecting you from? If you keep a hood on the lens, there is virtually nothing that could get all the down the filter, and in, to scratch your front element, and anything as substantial as a baseball or perhaps a BB would destroy both the filter and the lens element.


Also, this,  LINK  should explain fairly bluntly what you are costing yourself by putting a filter on your lens.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 12, 2009)

tsaraleksi said:


> What, exactly, are your UV filters protecting you from? If you keep a hood on the lens, there is virtually nothing that could get all the down the filter, and in, to scratch your front element, and anything as substantial as a baseball or perhaps a BB would destroy both the filter and the lens element.



First of all, I don't use them - I don't even own one anymore.

But, I do understand why some people use them.  I would consider getting one if I lived in a very sandy environment, or if I was going to visit one for an extended period...

Also, some weather sealed lenses are not completely sealed without a filter installed.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jul 12, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> tsaraleksi said:
> 
> 
> > What, exactly, are your UV filters protecting you from? If you keep a hood on the lens, there is virtually nothing that could get all the down the filter, and in, to scratch your front element, and anything as substantial as a baseball or perhaps a BB would destroy both the filter and the lens element.
> ...



Sandstorms, saltwater, maybe chlorinated water (if you're shooting at a pool), and rain, if shooting with a lens that needs a filter for weather sealing, are all good reasons to have a filter on hand to throw on if you need. But unless you are ALWAYS shooting in these conditions there's no reason to leave a filter on all the time, which I think is what you're saying as well. I was speaking without that nuance, should have been more clear.


----------



## MattxMosh (Jul 12, 2009)

I use one on a rare occasion that the UV index is super high. (aka I go to the beach with a camera)

The only reason I do, is because my Dad told me I should however long ago.


----------



## Montana (Jul 12, 2009)

Well, I usually use one shooting outdoor sports with tons of dust, but today I shot 300 photos of a demolition derby in 95 degree weather with dirt and mud flying everywhere, and my UV filter for my 70-200 2.8 IS was at the house. I even had a couple of instances where I had to flick the big globs off of the front element and then used my t-shirt to shine it up. Not a single scratch on it. I think people are way over protective/anal/worry wort....whatever you want to call it. These lenses and bodies are not just fragile little babies. The pro equipment was built to take abuse.  My lenses get a healthy workout every weekend at outdoor events.  I climb fences, sit on the bucking chutes, drink beer and fall in the dirt and there is not a single mark on either one of my camera bodies or lenses.  never even had to clean a sensor before.  I gave up worrying too much, it was sucking all the fun out of my shooting experience.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 13, 2009)

I really wish these poles would include the options of "Yes the cheapest filter I can find, or Yes but only the finest glass for my fine lenses".

It would separate those who don't care about image quality from the those who do, and have been found content with the completely unchanged image they get out of it.


----------



## Moglex (Jul 13, 2009)

Garbz said:


> I really wish these poles would include the options of "Yes the cheapest filter I can find, or Yes but only the finest glass for my fine lenses".
> 
> It would separate those who don't care about image quality from the those who do, and have been found content with the completely unchanged image they get out of it.



Yes but there are so many permutations that you'd end up with a survey rather than a simple poll. This seems to apply to most polls.

The way this one is worded answers the question that I was curious about namely how many people still use them for protection.

Twenty years ago and earlier it was (as far as I'm aware) universally accepted advice that you kept a UV lens on all your lenses outside. Many people would screw one to the front of their lens on purchase and it would never be removed.


----------



## NateS (Jul 13, 2009)

I use a Hoya S-HMC on my good lens....only good filters for me.  However, I use it when doing general shooting of family, pets, etc.... If I am doing an actual photoshoot for someone then I remove the filter.  Main reason for that is I want every bit of sharpness possible in those situations since I often shoot wide open and the second reason is that I sometimes use a ND filter for outdoor portraits and don't want to mess with removing the UV to add the ND.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jul 13, 2009)

My lenses are UV coated, no need... I have lens hoods and covers for all my glass and I don't shoot in crappy conditions


----------



## spiralcity (Jul 13, 2009)

I use it as lens protection but I remove it when I shoot.


----------



## Joves (Jul 13, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.
> 
> The sensor/sensor-filter in most DSLR's are not sensitive to wavelengths below 400nm ... so a UV filter's only purpose on Digital Camera's is for protection only.


 I agree. 
I never use one nor, do I own one. I use the Nikon Clears for protection and, if you want to eliminate haze on the edges of the sky, a CP is your friend. Living in a dusty area as I do, I owuld rather clean the filter 20 times a day, than to have to clean my lens that much. And for me that is how often I have to clean some days.


----------



## brucelee82 (Jul 13, 2009)

tsaraleksi said:


> Andrew Boyd said:
> 
> 
> > At the prices of lens glass, I've always thought you'd be nuts not to have a filter on. And as to the UV/film/digital issue, there are filters made specifically for digital sensors now that will do the trick.
> ...



The only times I use a UV filter is when I am at a drag race and shooting from the line. Ever been to one? When the cars do their burnouts they churn up sand and tiny particles of rubber come off the tire. I have done it with and without a lens hood, and while it is better with the hood on, some of the particles are still able to reach the front element of the lens. I put the UV on for protection and keep a Lens Pen in my pocket and after so many runs I'll remove the hood, clean the filter, and go back to shooting. I'd much rather be doing this than getting those tiny pieces of hot rubber all over my lens.


----------



## JerryPH (Jul 13, 2009)

I fall under the "yes all the time" becuase near all the time I use my cameras, it is in either dusty or hazardous conditions, so all of my lenses have a UV filter on them.  I recently had an issue with one filter that I thought was of good quality, but the sharpness of the shots was always under my expectations.  Removed the filter, sharpness was all there.  Replaced with a good Hoya pro filer... sharpness was still all there.  

Life is good again... lol


----------



## RJohnston (Jul 14, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> UV filtering only effective on Film camera's.
> 
> The sensor/sensor-filter in most DSLR's are not sensitive to wavelengths below 400nm ... so a UV filter's only purpose on Digital Camera's is for protection only.



That is opinion only, I always use them, they help cut through the haze when creating landscapes.  Yes, you can compensate some in PS for filters, but there is nothing like the real thing when shooting.  Ive used my Nikon without it, the difference means I will always use it.  Generally also use a Circular Polarizer at the same time.  It also makes a difference with and without the UV.  

If you have it, take some shots of the same scene in the distance with or without it and make your own educated decision.  Following the advice of those who have only heard this or that is no way to see what works best for you.  

If you do not shoot landscapes or distance scenes, they you may not need it.  Shooting this shot of a beach scene, the Islands and point would have been lost in a haze. The colors in water across the beach would have been lost in reflections without the Polarizer.


----------



## photonuts (Jul 14, 2009)

I always use it on my lenses


----------

