Question about UV Filter

[dorothya]

Is it advisable to use a CLEAR filter in digital photography instead of an UV filter, for instance when not taking landscape pictures with distant objects? I use a camera with an APC-S sensor. omegle

[davidedric]

Welcome to Cambridge in Colour.

You do not need a UV filter with a digital camera, but the question is do you need a filter at all?

This usually causes a fierce debate, with the pro and antis offering reasons that to them are compelling.

My personal view is to do whatever you feel comfortable with (personally I don't use filters other than a polarizer), we'll see what others have to say.

[Chataignier]

I use clear filters on all my lenses but purely for mechanical protection of the lens. In exceptional circumstances I have been known to take one off to ensure the best possible results - but I'm not sure that i could justify doing so technically.
Apart from that I use stoppers for long exposures and ND grads for toning down skies in landscapes etc but these go in a 100mm square holder and are not fixed directly to the lens so the clear filter normally remains attached even when using other filters. i also have circular polariser, but rarely use it.

[Manfred M]

In dirty / dusty or wet (rainy) environments they do act as an extra protective layer and I will definitely use them when shooting in those conditions. They are easier to clean than trying to clean the front element of the lens, so they make sense in those conditions.

I never use a filter when shooting at night (or into a light source, including the sun) or in a studio; even with the best mutli-coated filters. There is visible degradation of the images in those situations. In most other situations, I can go either way. That being said, I own four lenses that cannot take a standard screw-in filter, so I have no choice when using these. All but one of these area ultra-wide angle lenses.

If you decide to go the filter route, get high end multi-coated ones. These are expensive, but they do a good job of controlling veiling flare and have coatings the repel oil and water. I tend to use B+W filters, but others have suggested other brands like Hoya. Heliopan is also very highly regarded in the industry. B+W and Heliopan use brass rings which are less subject to binding than aluminum ones that are found on less expensive brands.

Store brands and off-brands found on eBay and Amazon should be avoided; there are a lot of counterfeit filters out there as well, so deal with reputable dealers when buying these. If the price seems to be too good to be true, chances are is it is not the real thing.

[xpatUSA]

...
If you decide to go the filter route, get high end multi-coated ones. These are expensive, but they do a good job of controlling veiling flare and have coatings the repel oil and water. I tend to use B+W filters, but others have suggested other brands like Hoya. Heliopan is also very highly regarded in the industry. B+W and Heliopan use brass rings which are less subject to binding than aluminum ones that are found on less expensive brands.

Welcome Dorothy,

You may find this oft-quoted article helpful if choosing a UV-blocking filter:

https://www.lenstip.com/113.4-articl...d_summary.html

Sometime ago, I bought the "winner" a Hoya UV(0) for a Sigma camera that had some UV response that I wanted to reduce. The filter worked as advertised although the difference without it was not huge.

CiC says that "Fortunately, digital camera sensors are nowhere near as sensitive to UV light as film, therefore UV filtration is no longer necessary."

However, that is a general statement which may not necessarily apply to your camera ... certainly not to my Sigma SD9 ...

[DanK]

My answer would have been nearly identical to Manfred's, with a few additional points.

I treat UV filters and clear protective filters as interchangeable, since most modern DSLRs have UV filters over the sensor. What matters is the quality of the glass and the quality of the coatings, which reduce glare. I have mostly Hoyas, but I also have B+W and Marumi. My current favorite is Marumi; their filters are excellent, and they tend to be a little cheaper than Hoyas (although harder to find.) Re aluminum vs. brass: just don't overtighten the filter. If one does get stuck, streching a fat rubber band around the filter ring will almost always give you enough grip to get it off.

[William W]

. . . Re aluminum vs. brass: just don't overtighten the filter. If one does get stuck, streching a fat rubber band around the filter ring will almost always give you enough grip to get it off.

1.


2.


3.


WW

[William W]

Is it advisable to use a CLEAR filter in digital photography instead of an UV filter, for instance when not taking landscape pictures with distant objects? I use a camera with an APC-S sensor.

Answering this question as it was asked: In theory, yes. The rationale is based in the answer Ted gave, not all digital sensors cut UV the same and, neither are all UV filters the same, therefore, there could, in theory, be instances where using a UV filter for the purpose of Lens Protection and not specifically for the purpose of cutting distant landscape haze, that you do indeed create a lesser quality image, or at the least an image without the UV sensitivity which might have been useful in the image file to create a better quality image.

For most practical purposes it would be difficult to notice any difference. The Format of the digital Camera (yours being APS-C) has little bearing on the theoretical answer I have provided.

***

As a general comment, and mainly because your question is posed with the meaning that you have already chosen to use a filter on your lens(es), I think it is very important to know the circumstances when you need to remove the filter to reduce the possibility it may cause affectations that you don't want, such as Flare, Ghost Images, and the like.

WW

[rpcrowe]

I own some very decent quality UV filters (no sense in degrading an excellent lens with a cheap filter) and use these only to protect the front elements of various lenses when I am in an environment which may be detrimental to the lens. This can include but are not limited to: salt spray from ocean waves, blowing dust and grit in desert areas and things like sparks from grinders in workshops...

I don't use these filters with the express purpose of blocking UV radiation.

I seem to remember that some Canon lenses that I used claimed to need a filter to be attached to complete the weather sealing but, I am not sure that my memory is solid about this fact...

OTOH: my main protection for my lenses is the use of a lens hood combined with common sense. I use a lens hood for both indoor and outdoor shooting and it not only does a good job in shielding the lens from stray light which can definitely degrade an image but a hood can protect the lens from physical damage. I can see not reason not to use a hood whenever I shoot. BTW: when possible, I will use a generic round screw-in hood. I fell one time and my Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS len hit the cement lens hood first. The hood was toast but, there was no damage to the lens. That was the best five bucks I ever spent because it saved that very expensive lens.

The filters that I use generally are three types: polarizing, neutral density and graduated neutral density... I also have some specialty filters (left over from my film days) such as cross screen which I very occasionally use for night photography...

[Manfred M]

I own some very decent quality UV filters (no sense in degrading an excellent lens with a cheap filter) and use these only to protect the front elements of various lenses when I am in an environment which may be detrimental to the lens. This can include but are not limited to: salt spray from ocean waves, blowing dust and grit in desert areas and things like sparks from grinders in workshops...

I don't use these filters with the express purpose of blocking UV radiation.

I seem to remember that some Canon lenses that I used claimed to need a filter to be attached to complete the weather sealing but, I am not sure that my memory is solid about this fact...

OTOH: my main protection for my lenses is the use of a lens hood combined with common sense. I use a lens hood for both indoor and outdoor shooting and it not only does a good job in shielding the lens from stray light which can definitely degrade an image but a hood can protect the lens from physical damage. I can see not reason not to use a hood whenever I shoot. BTW: when possible, I will use a generic round screw-in hood. I fell one time and my Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS len hit the cement lens hood first. The hood was toast but, there was no damage to the lens. That was the best five bucks I ever spent because it saved that very expensive lens.

The filters that I use generally are three types: polarizing, neutral density and graduated neutral density... I also have some specialty filters (left over from my film days) such as cross screen which I very occasionally use for night photography...

I do use either clear or UV filters on many of my lenses.

When shooting outdoors (or even on location indoors), I frequently change lenses and throw them into my camera bag without putting the front and rear lens caps back on. Cleaning a filter is far easier than cleaning a front element on the lens. If I do put a nasty finger print on the lens, it is often far easier to remove the filter and continue to shoot without one. I will get low to the ground and there is a much higher chance of getting into dirt than when one stands up and shoots.

Let's also get into the ugly truth about lens hoods, especially ones used on shorter focal length zoom lenses; many are fairly useless in terms of protecting the lens surface from getting hit by a direct light source. I know that the Nikon f/2.8 24-70mm (as does the Canon version) has a fairly complex design where the lens hood physically moves as focal length is varied. Longer focal length lenses have less of an issue here. With shorter focal length lenses, I often have to use something to block stray light from entering the lens; so the lens hood can end up being rather useless

When it comes to using clear filters, I never use them in the studio or for night shots. That extra optical element adds extra veiling flare and / or reflections that are not desirable. Does the extra optical element actually noticeably degrade the image. In my testing the answer is clearly no.

Where I have run into issues is with certain wide angle lenses. Filters can cause vignetting, although the ones that have been made with a low profile ring often do not exhibit this problem. Where I have run into quality issues, with and without filters, is with ultra wide angle lenses and closeup shots. The depth of field can get so wide that dust and dirt on the front element or on the filter start to come into focus.

What is more of an issue; more so with mirrorless cameras that DSLRs, is a dirty rear element of the lens. This can cast shadows on the sensor. While most people clean the front front element of their lens, most never touch the rear element and this is where we do see issues in the image.

Like you, I shoot with polarizers, ND and GND. While I have a few screw in type filters, I tend to use rectangular filters and a filter holder. Vignetting can be an issue, but these larger filters are usually uncoated and are more sensitive to reflections and veiling flare.