uv filter

[Colin Southern]

Well, the attached article shows a UV filter causing unwanted reflections and is definitely in a category of shots I would take.

Can't see any attached article.

[Donald]

Bill & Debbie

Looks like you're going to have to go with a "we'll agree to disagree" position on this one and make your own minds up based on the arguments presented and your own thoughts on the matter after reading them.

One of the lovely conundrums about our hobby - there are as many views as there are photographers.

[Black Pearl]

One of the lovely conundrums about our hobby - there are as many views as there are photographers.

One of the best bits of our hobby in my view

[Colin Southern]

But it is that limited degree which is important.

Nobody is saying "use a UV filter instead of a hood" - my suggestion is to use both.

That is, unless the hood does not actually extend past the objective (in which case what is the purpose of the hood?) the hood protects the lens exactly when it is most vulnerable - when it is heading objective first to the ground.

"Heading straight towards the ground" is probably when it is most vulnerable, but if one were to compile a list of things that it's desireable to protect a front element against, "heading south at terminal velocity" is only 1 thing; far more likely are dried salty seaspray - K9 wet noses - kids (and adult fingers) - tree branches - and yes, even protection from lens caps that come loose whilst the lens is in the bag (which happens more often than one might think).

You mentioned the Canon 24-70 and its moving objective. Even in its most advanced position, the hood still provides about 3/4" of protection for that objective from striking the ground or a protruding object. At full declension there is about 3" of [protection.

Not really - as I mentioned before, give the hood one good knock and they come flying off.

Now, I have to ask - how much protection does a UV filter provide - 1/32"? 1/4"?

against things like - off the top of my head "dried salty seaspray - K9 wet noses - kids (and adult fingers) - tree branches - and yes, even protection from lens caps that come loose whilst the lens is in the bag" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT protection.

And how often does a shattered UV filter damage an objective lens coating? I can't imagine a better material to scrape off an objective lens coating then shards of sharp glass.

Happened to me a couple of weeks ago. Front element completely unscathed.

Do we actually have any objective (sorry) evidence that overall, a UV filter protects lenses at all? Yes, we know they shatter all the time when lenses are dropped, but how do we know there was any protective vs destructive consequence to that event?

Again, it's not about protecting a lens being dropped (although I might add that a colleague tripped the other day and mashed a 1D3 / 24-105 (with filter) into sand on the beach - and lived to tell the tale). Hoods provide virtually zero protection against this as they just pop off.

[Dave Humphries]

In a small percentage of cases, you may have a point Ginger, like the small percentage of cases where wearing a seat belt might be argued to have trapped a person in a flooding car and they drown.

It is like complaining about seatbelt bruises after a "head-on" - vs going through the windscreen/windshield - I know which I'd rather have.

You have your view (and take your chances), we have ours (and take ours).

Has anyone totaled up the number of people "for" having a filter vs those against?
I bet the 'fors' have more than 2 advocates.

[Colin Southern]

You have your view (and take your chances), we have ours (and take ours).

I agree.

Let me also put it this way ...

I've damaged lenses without a UV filter (and not by dropping) - I've saved lenses from damage by using a UV filter - I've never had anyone say to me "you're images don't look too good there mate - must be the UV filter!".

Or as we used to say: "if it looks like a duck ... sounds like a duck ... quacks like a duck, then, ... it's probably a duck".

[djg05478]

Bill & Debbie

Looks like you're going to have to go with a "we'll agree to disagree" position on this one and make your own minds up based on the arguments presented and your own thoughts on the matter after reading them.

One of the lovely conundrums about our hobby - there are as many views as there are photographers.

What blessed lives we lead that this is our debate and we have the free will to carry on as we choose. Bottom line (for me right now) is money (er, lack of) and this 10 minutes heat and the fuel that makes it, is far more important than camera equipment. So for that reason alone I'll be going "naked" ......but thanks to the lively discussion this afternoon, with a much better understanding of the potential pros and cons.

[Gingerbaker]

Can't see any attached article.

Sorry - I meant the article by Mike Johnston in my first post in this thread.

[Gingerbaker]

...

Let me also put it this way ...

... - I've never had anyone say to me "you're images don't look too good there mate - must be the UV filter!".
...

I'll add just such a comment to every one of your photos from now on, just to be funny.

[Colin Southern]

I'll add just such a comment to every one of your photos from now on, just to be funny.

I have a feeling the one who laughs first may be different to the one still laughing at the end

[rpcrowe]

I have heard good reports on the Marumi filters. I read an article (first published in Poland) which did some extensive scientifically oriented testing on the Marumi filter and it gave that brand quite high marks.

Unfortunately, not being in the market for filters, I did not bookmark the review and I cannot find it using Googls as my search engine.

[jiro]

All images that I have posted in this forum was done with lenses all having UV filters installed in them. I guess I could subjectively say that UV filters does not cause any considerable sharpness and quality issues if used properly. Second, I dropped my old 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 Nikon lens 3 feet from the ground. The front element hit a stone resting on the ground and it shattered the UV filter attached. I believe the UV filter absorbed much of the impact because the lens is still OK. If not for the filter, I don't think the lens would survive the drop. By the way, I use HOYA filters.

[Dave Humphries]

~ I dropped my old 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 Nikon lens 3 feet from the ground. The front element hit a stone resting on the ground and it shattered the UV filter attached. I believe the UV filter absorbed much of the impact because the lens is still OK. If not for the filter, I don't think the lens would survive the drop.

Ah yes, a sort of "crumple zone", another safety feature quite well proven

By the way, I use HOYA filters.

So do I