Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 30, 2011, 10:14 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 248
Default Just wondering

How many people use a UV filter for protection on the lens, how many think it degrades the image?
Bowenp is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 30, 2011, 10:21 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076

Originally Posted by Bowenp View Post
How many people use a UV filter for protection on the lens, how many think it degrades the image?
I do. I use either a UV or a clear filter for lens protection. I use B+W filters, very expensive....but why put a cheap filter in front of an expensive lens.

I use B+W as they are excellent quality and as a result do not see any picture degradation.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 2:55 AM   #3
Senior Member
wave01's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,742

I use a uv filter but again its a Hoya pro1. I think if you put a chap one on then you may have problems. I have tried with and without and i cant see any difference, but made others can.
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 5:32 AM   #4
Senior Member
tacticdesigns's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 998

I use them, but I also think they degrade the image.

I just got started using some lenses without the filter, then my 3 year old decided to jam a piece of plastic into my new Nikon 18-55mm VR, so I put that filter back onto the lens. Lenses are durable, but why risk the lens if you know your kid's prone to jamming things into it.

Take care, Glen
tacticdesigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 5:42 AM   #5
Senior Member
rhermans's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Antwerp - Belgium
Posts: 3,454

I use them because I'm sometimes to much changing lenses and can't find the lenscap fast enough.

Haven't seen any deterioration and it's an extra protection.

Cheers Ronny
rhermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 7:00 AM   #6
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,528

The biggest potential issue is additional flare. Even then, it's still a low expectation of issue. There is a tiny degradation of IQ but only if pixel peeping. Having said that - about 4 years ago I abandoned my filters. I use a lens hood on my lenses - the hood protects against flare and protects the lens a bit. If you're in a harsh environment with blowing sand/debris it makes sense. Otherwise it's wasted money IMO. Offers the same protection as a lucky rabbit's foot - except the rabbit's foot costs a lot less So, my opinion is both camps over-exaggerate. For my part I've shot hundreds of thousands of images in sporting events, on beaches and in family life without lens filters. No problems. But use a lens hood - that really does help your images.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 3:29 PM   #7
Senior Member
mtngal's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,006

I agree with the lens hood over the filter, I've seen extra flare a couple of times. On the other hand, I keep a couple of UV filters and polarizers around and once passed up a chance to shoot some desert 4x4 racers because I didn't have any of them with me and I didn't feel like having my lenses sand-blasted.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 4:07 PM   #8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,811

G'day BowenP

I'm sure from the above you will see that there's a variety of opinions here
I used to use UV/SkyLight filters 100%

I have found that after-dark / city street at night images pick up flares from the very bright pin-point street lights and give refraction-blurring across the image ... so I take 'em off for night shooting

When down at the beach, I put 'em on to keep the sea spray/salt spray off the front of the lens [& like MtnGal above to protect from sand blasting]

Most of my filters are Hoya or Lee jobs costing around $45-50 if that helps at all
Regards, Phil
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Google me at Travelling School of Photography Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 4:47 PM   #9
Senior Member
Wingman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,297

With the excepton of lens flare, can someone post examples of images with and without a UV filter so I can see the degradation of IQ that many speak of? As a self professed pixel peeper extraodinaire, I cannot tell the difference in my images!
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 7:35 PM   #10
Senior Member
mole's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,434

Used to use them, don't very often now (more due to laziness in not wanting to carry more "stuff" on the trail, and do not have all the different sizes needed). Did have one on my Tamron 18-250 one day when hiking off trail. A stray rhododendron branch hit the lens (inside the hood) and cracked the UV filter! Did not even notice the large crack across the filter until I got back from the trip, and could not see any signs of it in the photos!

Agree with Jelpee - would be interesting to see some comparisons (perhaps I should take some...)
mole is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:47 AM.