UV Filters, Do They Really Protect You?

[privatebydesign]

Hypothetical scenario...
John Smith goes onto the beach every weekend during summer to shoot images of kites. Ideal conditions for flying kites is quite windy weather. After a couple of years John will sell his lens for an updated version

Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?

Not hypothetical, I used a 300mm f2.8 L IS for shooting surf photography from a point break within 15ft of breaking waves for years, I cleaned the lens every day after use and there isn't one single speck, swirl mark, or anything else on the 'front element'.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I had a case where the UV filter saved the lens.
Shooting a post national championship crowd reaction and there were lots of giant bonfires in the streets and tons of embers floating around the air. When I got back, I was stunned to see a number of holes burned into the coatings on the front of the filter. Had I not had the filter on, I imagine the coatings on the front element would've had nasty scar marks and the front element would've been a mess.

Also, once some little kid with insanely greasy pizza fingers reached out suddenly and pressed against the filter. It was coated with so much gloppy grease that it was almost unreal. That would've been a heck of a beast to get off the front element.

And when in deserts or the shore sometimes harsh grit gets on the lens and occasional there is some little bit that is sharp enough to leave a scratch if you wipe it off in the field without an ultra delicate blow off first (and even then it still happened once).

And sometimes salt is so much in the air, especially on the eastern seaboard, far less often on the west by a radical amount, that any surface is caked in salt like every 15 minutes at most and you need to constantly wipe in the field again and again and it's probably nice to have filters on in that scenario.

Sometimes you end up in a scenario where didn't expect that stuff to happen and/or just need to wipe even with a shirt or whatever and a filter can save the odd occasional scratch and pit.

So as he says, in special scenarios, it can help (as well as even the somewhat rare time otherwise). And sometimes you don't even know there will be a special scenario such as the post game celebration or perhaps the pizza finger one (although for the latter I guess you can assume when doing some PJ shooting and there is any chance there might remotely be kids around it's safer with the filter).

But they certainly add flare as he says, so in those conditions, unless something else insists on it, filters off.
And even with top filters sometimes there can be a slight loss in microcontrast, mostly it's all but imperceptible, but for whatever reason, with a few particular lenses the hit is just enough to make a small but real enough difference that it's maybe better to keep them off much of the time on those rare, few lenses.

So yeah I guess I more or less agree with the video, although I somewhat more lean towards having them on these days. I originally started out almost never using them. Not I tend to mostly use them, although have been shifting a bit back towards using them not quite as much unless it's known bad conditions.

Also, they can sometimes help complete the seal on some lenses so when shooting in rain I put them on.

Although he did forget resale value. If you can say there is not the slightest hint of any mark permanently left to front coatings or not even the finest scratch anywhere and that is was protected you can get more money on resale that can easily make up the filter cost. Although does such damage occur often enough to make up for the filter prices? Depends, also upon how many lenses you go through and sell. I've sold and swapped around quite a lot over the years.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Not hypothetical, I used a 300mm f2.8 L IS for shooting surf photography from a point break within 15ft of breaking waves for years, I cleaned the lens every day after use and there isn't one single speck, swirl mark, or anything else on the 'front element'.

I did the same, only for likely less years and quite a few less times, and actually do see a few long, very fine scratches though.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Also, in some cases, certain filters actually wipe off more quickly and completely than the front element, which can be convenient in the field.
A few also repel water better.

(although some more recent Canon lenses have some very grease and water repellent coatings now, maybe as good as anything)

 

[YuengLinger]

Hypothetical scenario...
John Smith goes onto the beach every weekend during summer to shoot images of kites. Ideal conditions for flying kites is quite windy weather. After a couple of years John will sell his lens for an updated version

Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?

Not hypothetical, I used a 300mm f2.8 L IS for shooting surf photography from a point break within 15ft of breaking waves for years, I cleaned the lens every day after use and there isn't one single speck, swirl mark, or anything else on the 'front element'.

Not buying this, PBD. Perhaps you didn't inspect carefully--or, over time, didn't notice changes to the front element.

Those who rant against filters are simply venting their own anxieties about not using them. ???

It's up to the lens's owner!

Yawn...Really a zzzzlow night.

 

[privatebydesign]

Hypothetical scenario...
John Smith goes onto the beach every weekend during summer to shoot images of kites. Ideal conditions for flying kites is quite windy weather. After a couple of years John will sell his lens for an updated version

Should John use a filter to protect the front element from the impact of tiny highly-abrasive sand particles (which would be blown around by the wind) or would the front element be best protected by being left uncovered?

Not hypothetical, I used a 300mm f2.8 L IS for shooting surf photography from a point break within 15ft of breaking waves for years, I cleaned the lens every day after use and there isn't one single speck, swirl mark, or anything else on the 'front element'.

Not buying this, PBD. Perhaps you didn't inspect carefully--or, over time, didn't notice changes to the front element.

Those who rant against filters are simply venting their own anxieties about not using them. ???

It's up to the lens's owner!

Yawn...Really a zzzzlow night.

Don't care if you are buying it, I'm not selling it. Here is a full sized untouched jpeg focused on the front of the front piece of glass, the only way I could get accurate focus was to leave some dust on it, there is dust, but no cleaning marks.

I'm creating/running monthly screen profiles so I have loads of time..................

Click on the image and it will open in another window, click on again and you get 100% view.

P.S. 100% agree it is up to the owner, just do it from a place of knowledge not internet hyperbole. I am certainly not telling people not to, just pointing out that I haven't for 35 odd years and have never damaged a front element, broken lots of other stuff, but never front element damage.

 

[YuengLinger]

Ok--you clean your front element with exceptional care. I'll accept that. You never had to do an urgent field cleaning only to discover too late you had abrasive grit in the mix.

A driver might say he has never had an accident in 35 years, so doesn't need seatbelts. Not convincing.

The effectiveness of front filters was established long before there was such a thing as internet hype. Their quality and lack of impact on IQ has improved greatly in that time.

 

[privatebydesign]

Ok--you clean your front element with exceptional care. I'll accept that. You never had to do an urgent field cleaning only to discover too late you had abrasive grit in the mix.

A driver might say he has never had an accident in 35 years, so doesn't need seatbelts. Not convincing.

The effectiveness of front filters was established long before there was such a thing as internet hype. Their quality and lack of impact on IQ has improved greatly in that time.

Well maybe not as good as you think, if you take the time to look you will see a couple of tiny marks, they aren't cleaning swirls but they are there. They are not visible to the naked eye and having seen damaged front element tests I know there is no impact on IQ. But no, I take no special care and often wipe off moisture in the field with my shirt tail or sleeve, modern coatings are very tough.

But, the effectiveness of front filters was established back in an era when they actually did something, film records UV so UV filters improved IQ, now sensors have UV filters on them so an additional UV filter doesn't do anything.

As another personal anecdote, I got something on the front element of my 100L Macro, don't know what it was but it was tough, like dried sap, as I tried to clean it I just made it worse and it looked like I had made a hole in the coatings, I gave up and left it in the bag. I tried again with way too much force thinking I either clean it or send it in for a new one, I rubbed until the element was warm, it looked horrific, I left it in the drawer. I came back to it one day when I was cleaning something else with some liquid ammonia and isopropyl alcohol, again thinking I killed it so nothing to lose, but it cleaned everything off perfectly, no rub marks or scratches just a perfect front element again, I was happy. The image of the 300 element was taken with the 100L Macro.

Again, not trying to convince anybody one way or the other, and I certainly have no anxieties about not using them, however my practical experience has been they don't do anything useful on today's cameras that have UV filters on their sensors.

 

[Ozarker]

What I don't understand is why do people who choose not to use a protective filter feel it necessary to try to convince other people not to use protective filters?

If you wanna use a protective filter, great
If you don't wanna use a protective filter, great

Can you imagine being the spouse or child of these types?

 

[Ozarker]

When I bought my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM it came with a set of three Pro Optic filters (UV, ND, Slim CPL). First thing I did is take the UV filter and bust all the glass out of it. I use the metal ring that used to house the glass filter to protect the plastic filter threads of my lens.

I choose not to use UV filters, though I might if I ever shoot at a beach.

 

[chromophore]

Canon market their lenses as "weather resistant."

If a Canon lens were to be affected by blowing sand or sea spray, wouldn't that indicate that it wasn't weather resistant?

Sure, because when was the last time you checked the weather forecast, and it said that tomorrow morning would have a 30% chance of blowing sandstorms, followed in the afternoon by a 60% chance of a saltwater shower?

Sand is not weather. Salt is not weather. Next you will be claiming that "weather-resistant" should include being impervious to crude oil because you might go out the door one day and find yourself on a sinking oil tanker.

 

[Kristofgss]

Sand is not weather. Salt is not weather. Next you will be claiming that "weather-resistant" should include being impervious to crude oil because you might go out the door one day and find yourself on a sinking oil tanker.

Acid rain would count as weather. ;D I remember that from before all the air-pollution rules were enforced. And living close to a soap factory, there were days when it foamed in the streets when it rained at the time too. It smelled nice though.

I use filters on the more expensive lenses as protection. it's cheaper to replace than a lens front element if I get it scratched. I'd love to have something like that for my glasses though, no matter which coating they have, I always end up getting nicks and scratches on them.

 

[Ozarker]

...
And when in deserts or the shore sometimes harsh grit gets on the lens and occasional there is some little bit that is sharp enough to leave a scratch if you wipe it off in the field without an ultra delicate blow off first (and even then it still happened once).

And sometimes salt is so much in the air, especially on the eastern seaboard, far less often on the west by a radical amount, that any surface is caked in salt like every 15 minutes at most and you need to constantly wipe in the field again and again and it's probably nice to have filters on in that scenario.

Sometimes you end up in a scenario where didn't expect that stuff to happen and/or just need to wipe even with a shirt or whatever and a filter can save the odd occasional scratch and pit.
...

Canon market their lenses as "weather resistant."

If a Canon lens were to be affected by blowing sand or sea spray, wouldn't that indicate that it wasn't weather resistant?

NO. You are pretty weather resistant yourself Dilbert. However, stuff enough sand down your throat or take you far enough out to sea and dump you off, or leave you naked in the arctic... and you'll find out the difference between weather proof and weather resistant real fast.

What the heck is wrong with you?

 

[Digbydriver]

All pro television news photographers use a UV filter. Why? One guy did not have one, went to Ocean Beach in San Francisco on a windy day. and ended up with a sandblasted front element. Repair? $1400.00.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

When you have been out taking photos, has anyone ever fired a steel bolt at your lens? It has never happened to me, but I have dropped lenses on 3 separate occasions. Each time the UV filter shattered but the lens was undamaged. Now I don't know whether the lens would have been damaged if there had been no UV filter in place, but personally I am not prepared to take that risk.
Although I like Steve Perry's presentation style, the video would have been far better if it had used a test scenario that was likely to happen - such as dropping the lens, or suffering damage from another lens or a gadget in a camera bag.

 

[unfocused]

...You are pretty weather resistant yourself Dilbert. However, stuff enough sand down your throat or take you far enough out to sea and dump you off, or leave you naked in the arctic... and you'll find out the difference between weather proof and weather resistant real fast.

What the heck is wrong with you?

I can't tell if this is a hypothetical or a recommended experiment. I am sure many on this forum would be willing to chip in to underwrite the cost of such an experiment.

 

[privatebydesign]

...You are pretty weather resistant yourself Dilbert. However, stuff enough sand down your throat or take you far enough out to sea and dump you off, or leave you naked in the arctic... and you'll find out the difference between weather proof and weather resistant real fast.

What the heck is wrong with you?

I can't tell if this is a hypothetical or a recommended experiment. I am sure many on this forum would be willing to chip in to underwrite the cost of such an experiment.

I'd be official photographer, but we'll have to wait until I can afford a Sony so if I underexpose I can save the exposure in post :

Seriously, I know dilbert can be annoying sometimes, and very obtuse almost all the time, but he does raise some interesting points on occasion and he keeps his unemotional persona going long after I can.

 

[FTb-n]

For another perspective, Kai, at DigitalRev did his own test. WARNING: Kai's language can be a bit salty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9TUIC-Dtk

 

[Ozarker]

...You are pretty weather resistant yourself Dilbert. However, stuff enough sand down your throat or take you far enough out to sea and dump you off, or leave you naked in the arctic... and you'll find out the difference between weather proof and weather resistant real fast.

What the heck is wrong with you?

I can't tell if this is a hypothetical or a recommended experiment. I am sure many on this forum would be willing to chip in to underwrite the cost of such an experiment.

I'd be official photographer, but we'll have to wait until I can afford a Sony so if I underexpose I can save the exposure in post :

Seriously, ... but he does raise some interesting points on occasion and he keeps his unemotional persona going long after I can.

Very true.

 

[privatebydesign]

I am, much to my wife's annoyance, the guy in front that doesn't run the orange light, and I am never late.

The frustrating thing in discussing trying to discuss things with you is too often you are in complete denial, like the 600mm thread where you believe it is a 400 MkII, even though the geometry is completely wrong. It is there right in front of your own eyes and you still deny it. You also refuse to answer simple questions and when your points are shown to be wrong you just throw up other equally fallacious stretches of your imagination non issues.

Also, this is s gear forum, I appreciate that, but the gear is there to create a visual medium. In general I don't post images but I have posted hundreds of illustrative examples that clearly demonstrate the point or issue I am talking about, you don't and I wish you did. Heck you won't even say if you have your Sony yet!