UV Filters - Do they do ANYTHING?

[Thlayle]

See: https://petapixel.com/2020/05/13/man...t-your-lenses/

I have always used a UV filter, primarily for lens protection. I saw this article about them and it make me wonder if they really are worth bothering with. I first began thinking about this recently when I had one stuck on a lens and had a devil of a time removing it. This article points out that UV filters are not only NOT needed on today's digital cameras, they really don't provide meaningful protection.

Still I cannot seem to leave mine at home.

I am curious to what others are doing? Do you use a UV filter or have you stopped?

[William W]

See: https://petapixel.com/2020/05/13/man...t-your-lenses/ . . .This article points out that UV filters are not only NOT needed on today's digital cameras, they really don't provide meaningful protection.

That is not the way I interpret what is written in the article.

I understand the article to state (several times) that the manufacturers say their Filters are not designed for lens protection purposes and nor do any they make claim that their Filters do afford protection.

Whether the filter provides any protection, or not, is a different question. And on this question the author states that the evidence is mainly anecdotal and also the author states his opinion that this evidence is mostly useless.

On the author's conclusion "When the manufacturers themselves do not claim that UV filters protect against impact damage, I think it is safe to say that this idea is mostly nonsense." (op. cit.) That's non sequitur and as a 'conclusion' or a 'finding' is simply total rubbish.

***

Yes, I keep mainly (high quality) UV filters on all lenses that allow and my main purpose is to afford some physical protection to the front element of the lens.

I have stressed in previous responses to questions like this, that the most important consideration if one chooses to use any Filter for the purpose of 'protection' is to know in what shooting situations it should be removed to avoid a deleterious impact on the Image. The two most common two being: Flare (a range of types); and Ghost Images.

WW

[xpatUSA]

The trouble considering the "protection" is: a) the various thicknesses available and the various means of tempering the glass and b) the infinite range of impact strengths due to the infinite number of ways the filter might get whacked. The only protection I consider of any value is proof against fingerprints and the ingress of dirt.

I use a Hoya UV(0) on one of my cameras and there is a slight difference in images captured outside with and without.

Speaking as the resident pedant, I must point out that a "UV filter" would actually pass UV to the lens and block visible/IR ...

[billtils]

Speaking as the resident pedant, I must point out that a "UV filter" would actually pass UV to the lens and block visible/IR ...

[Rufus]

That is not the way I interpret what is written in the article.

I understand the article to state (several times) that the manufacturers say their Filters are not designed for lens protection purposes and nor do any they make claim that their Filters do afford protection.

Whether the filter provides any protection, or not, is a different question. And on this question the author states that the evidence is mainly anecdotal and also the author states his opinion that this evidence is mostly useless.

On the author's conclusion "When the manufacturers themselves do not claim that UV filters protect against impact damage, I think it is safe to say that this idea is mostly nonsense." (op. cit.) That's non sequitur and as a 'conclusion' or a 'finding' is simply total rubbish.

***

Yes, I keep mainly (high quality) UV filters on all lenses that allow and my main purpose is to afford some physical protection to the front element of the lens.

I have stressed in previous responses to questions like this, that the most important consideration if one chooses to use any Filter for the purpose of 'protection' is to know in what shooting situations it should be removed to avoid a deleterious impact on the Image. The two most common two being: Flare (a range of types); and Ghost Images.

WW

I really like your routinely forensic factual analyses.

I also use a filter to protect the front element, and the lens hood offers some protection to that and the lens in general as has been pointed out here in the past.

[Tronhard]

This subject seems to arouse passions amongst the contributors on the various sites on which I have seen it discussed. It has been repeated here a couple of times in past posts, I believe. There are people who swear by them and those that swear at them...

I think a lot of the value of a filter for protection depends on under what kinds of conditions one is photographing. If one is using lenses under fairly controlled conditions, then I can definitely see an argument for not using them - they are, after all, another layer of glass through which the light passes. Here, I must say there is a major differential in the quality of glass available, so while one person may say they ruin the image and another may see no appreciable difference, it may be because of the quality of the filter. I see no point in buying an expensive lens and then putting an inferior quality filter in front of it.

If one is using their lenses in more rigorous conditions - and I would class those as environmentally uncontrolled, where one may be subjected to dust, sand, sticky fingers, moisture - then I definitely see an argument for the extra protection that a decent filter provides. If a lens must be frequently cleaned of deposits, then I would prefer to wear down the coatings on a filter than my front element. Sandblasting and salt on a windy beach is likely to cause permanent damage to exposed glass. Since those are the conditions under which I have done most of my photography, I can say with some experience that filters have reduced the wear and tear on my lenses, and have also become a sacrificial component when my camera was dropped by a security person at an airport check-in. While my camera was in a Lowe Pro holster and fell only about 150mm I was not immediately concerned, but once I had gone onto the aircraft and opened the holster, I found the filter (in this case a CP filter) completely shattered and bent so that I actually had to saw it off when I got home. I am quite confident that my front element would have been destroyed if that filter had not taken the hit, yet when I checked the lens it was functioning perfectly. I did a shoot in a steel mill and had hot metal fragments embed themselves in the filter glass, but the lens was untouched. So again I would say that, for me, filters have served me well as a protection device.

A lot of people extol the virtues of lens hoods for protection instead of lens filters. Frankly I use both: as flare mitigation and for physical protection. Lens hoods will take the hit if one was to drop the lens (with camera or not) and may also be useful for frontal contact against large objects . One did this when my great nephew slammed his fire engine into my lens as I was taking his photo. Both devices were fine (the hood sprung back) - although I suffered a facial bruise as a result!

I don't think either is a panacea in its own right. For me, I am prepared to invest in good filters to protect my investment in lenses, but I have already expressed my working conditions. Each person has to make their own evaluation, and I find it unhelpful when someone says categorically that one 'must" or "must not" use a device - life isn't that simple. As Bill eloquently said, it depends on what you do and the kinds of risks to which one subjects the equipment.

[William W]

I really like your routinely forensic factual analyses.

Thank you. I think that type of approach can be sometimes mistaken. I tend approach most internet 'articles' from a journalism sub-editorial point of view.

***

Adding to Ted's list of what a Filter could 'protect' - dog's investigative noses, children's sticky fingers, sea salt spray and beach sand (in windy weather), beer/lemonade/wine splashes.

I used to cover lots of social functions, with film I'd typically carry three cameras, it was not unusual to get one or more of the above especially of the front of the lens of the camera swinging off the back of my shoulder.

Typically the cleaning technique would be a table napkin sometimes with soda water. Better the Filter be cleaned than the front element of the lens, is my thinking.

The habit of leaving a Filter on, has just stuck.

As mentioned - I take it off, when there's any chance of Flare, Ghost Images etc.

WW

[Manfred M]

I often shoot in environments that are not all that clean, so having something in front of the lens element is not going to hurt. I also generally have my lenses lying in the camera bag without a lens cap over the front element to speed up lens changes. Occasionally one of my fingers gets on the surface of the filter and frankly I find it a lot easier to clean a filter than a lens element. I generally have the lens hoods in place and that helps keep the fingers away too.

Like Bill, I will remove them when shooting in conditions conducive to flare and ghosting (i.e. back lighting or night photography) and the only time I use them in the studio is when I forget to remove them.

I own four lenses (three are ultra-wide angle ones) that do not accept screw in filters.

If anyone thinks that a very thin piece of a very hard but brittle material (i.e. glass) is going to protect their lens from impact damage is clearly not being a realist.

[Tronhard]

If anyone thinks that a very thin piece of a very hard but brittle material (i.e. glass) is going to protect their lens from impact damage is clearly not being a realist.

I see your point Manfred, but a lot depends on what the impact is and, in particular how it is delivered. If something small and sharp hits a lens at speed - like a stone at a race track, a filter might not do much, but for others it works. Also, I think it is not just the glass that is the protective element (excuse the pun). The metal ring itself actually provides protection against an impact at an angle. In the case of the impact I quoted the metal ring was clearly deformed and flattened quite badly, but it did that instead of the seat for the front element of the lens. The lateral forces dissipated to the filter that then shattered, but those forces that were not are transmitted down the lens more in line with its structure and so were more likely to be absorbed. Of course, much depends on the degree of forces (I don't recommend hitting a lens with a hammer to test this out).

[Manfred M]

I see your point Manfred, but a lot depends on what the impact is and, in particular how it is delivered. If something small and sharp hits a lens at speed - like a stone at a race track, a filter might not do much, but for others it works. Also, I think it is not just the glass that is the protective element (excuse the pun). The metal ring itself actually provides protection against an impact at an angle. In the case of the impact I quoted the metal ring was clearly deformed and flattened quite badly, but it did that instead of the seat for the front element of the lens. The lateral forces dissipated to the filter that then shattered, but those forces that were not are transmitted down the lens more in line with its structure and so were more likely to be absorbed. Of course, much depends on the degree of forces (I don't recommend hitting a lens with a hammer to test this out).

It all depends, Trev...

I have a lens that had an incident where the metal filter ring got compressed and deformed, but unfortunately, that shattered the glass in the filter. That pressed a small piece of filter glass into the front element of the lens, causing a small "nick". The lens works fine and the small bit of damage does not affect the images I take with the lens. Without the filter, the lens would likely not have been damaged at all.

The lens is the original Nikkor 80 - 400mm model and I don't use it all that often anymore. I don't shoot a lot of wildlife these days.

[Val Mansfield]

Just a quote from my diary of September 24th 2016, "I had an exciting moment when my camera was shaken off a doorknob and hit the ground. The lens cover absorbed the first shock and flew off and then my neutral filter did its job and sacrificed its life to protect the lens. So there was no great harm done!"

[rpcrowe]

I use UV type filters for protection when...

1. I am shooting in locations when there might be a significant amount of dust or debris blowing - such as in the Desert Southwest or around the ocean when there is significant salt water spray...

2. I am not using another filter such as a CPL or ND. I do not double up on filters...

3. I am shooting in the rain - many lenses that are listed as moisture resistant require the use of a filter to ensure the resistance to moisture...

5. I forget to remove the filter from a pervious shoot...



BTW: I use high quality filters which do not seem to degrade my image to any appreciable degree...

I will always shoot with a lens hood attached, whether shooting indoors or outdoors. The hood will protect my lens from unwanted flare and will also protect my lens from physical damage...

I once tripped stepping into the street when I had a Canon 40D with 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on a neck strap riding on my chest. The lens hit the blacktop with the screw-in hood absorbing the impact of my fall. The hood was toast but, the lens came through unscathed. That hood was the best five U.S. Dollar purchase I ever made. It saved a thousand dollar lens. I did not have a filter on the lens when this happened...

[Tronhard]

It all depends, Trev....

EXACTLY - I think that phrase says it all. I think it is a sweeping generalization to say that filters absolutely will or will not protect a lens. As we both seem to agree it depends on exactly what impacts or abrasions the lens is subjected to. In the end I think it's a matter of taste and risk management, depending on where the lens will be working. I use both filters and hoods and for me that works. Each to their own, I think.

[Thlayle]

This article was not the first time I saw advice that essentially said to skip the UV filters.

I appreciate everyone's comments. They help in just the way I was hoping for: to put the author's POV (and comments from the filter makers) into some further context.

[DanK]

You've received very sensible advice, but at the risk of being redundant, I'll make a few points.

I read the article before you posted it, and it annoyed me. The questions it posed are red herrings. Of course manufacturers don't make claims about protection against impact, but as Bill noted, that's an entirely different question. And none of the photographers I know who use filters for protection do so to protect against heavy impact. They use them to protect against the sorts of things posted above: sand, children's greasy fingers, and so on. They have no compressible material (unlike, for example, a bicycle helmet), so they aren't well suited to absorbing impact. they sometimes may help in those circumstances, but that is a bonus, not the reason to use them.

My policy is similar to what several people have posted: I use them when they may help and don't use them when they may create a problem. For example, I never use them in night photography, when one often has light sources in front of you, because under those circumstances, there is a real risk of increased flare. I don't use them in studio macro because I do that in a controlled environment. I generally do use them in uncontrolled environments. The one exception is my nifty fifty, which is so cheap that it doesn't make a lot of sense to buy a high-quality filter (I only use high quality filters) to protect it.

I've had to throw out a few filters when they were damaged. I'll mention one incident. i was asked to do the photography for an engagement party. It was all candids in someone's home. At one point, I had to do something else, so I set my camera on a clean kitchen counter, away from all food. When I returned, there was a big greasy smudge on the filter. There was no sign of the perpetrator, not that it would have helped if there had been. I was never able to clean it adequately. I suppose I could have cleaned it with strong detergents, but I assumed that would ruin the coatings, so I tossed it. Better that than a front element.

One point is that the UV filtration itself is pointless because digital sensors have UV filters. Some brands therefore offer "protective filters" that have the same anti-glare coatings but offer no UV protection. I buy these when they are cheaper. Marumi, which is the brand I use most, offers them.

[Manfred M]

To recap.

People are looking for a black and white answer and tend to be in one or the other camps, i.e. yes filter / no filter.

Life is never that easy and people should recognize that there is no perfect solution and there are times where a filter is absolutely necessary to prevent damage to the lens and that there are other times where we should be removing the filter, regardless of the quality of the filter we own.

[Thlayle]

Thanks again. And I will note I saw in this article some of the hallmark signs of being in the category of "annoying click-bait" with the question it was posing and the way they treated the subject. Still, not having nearly the depth of experience and knowledge of so many in this group, I thought it would be worthwhile to run it by this group -- and it was!

[DanK]

Thanks again. And I will note I saw in this article some of the hallmark signs of being in the category of "annoying click-bait" with the question it was posing and the way they treated the subject. Still, not having nearly the depth of experience and knowledge of so many in this group, I thought it would be worthwhile to run it by this group -- and it was!

I use an iPhone/iPad app called Flipboard that aggregates articles on the topics of your choice. I included "photography" when I set it up. I have found some valuable information that way, but I have also seen lots of articles that are silly, misleading, or simply wrong. It's the downside of the internet: anyone can post anything, and some of the sites from which Flipboard culls aren't sufficiently careful in vetting what they post.

It was on flipboard that I first saw the article you posted, as they routinely include include things from Petapixel. Some of them are quite informative, but this one certainly wasn't.