Do you install a UV filter on your LF lenses?

[Sal Santamaura]

The issue is that currently, our dollar is garbage. Living in Canada, a lot of prices for special consumer products like these are higher simply because of the limited number of importers and the high taxes...

I'd suggest ordering from B&H. Apparently, it has come up with a shipping program that is acceptable to many of your countrymen. As for taxes, they are what they are, and I can offer no way around them. At least you get something in return for paying them.

...The static minimum wage (which is what I earn) doesn't really help given the current depreciation of our dollar's value. I looked at the Hoya's, and the B+W's together. The B+W's are, in most cases, between 2 and 4 times as expensive than the Hoyas...

Large format photography has always been expensive as a hobby. When the digital revolution mostly buried it as a profession, much equipment became available very cheaply. I believe that time has passed. Engaging in this as a hobby carries with it certain irreducible costs. Perhaps if you can't pay the freight for filters that won't degrade optical performance, your lenses should go "naked."

...Most of my lenses came used. Very few of them are in mint condition. My most expensive lens was 450$. Am I being unreasonable in thinking that paying half, or, as is the case with most of my other lenses, 2/3 or 3/4 the price of the lens for a filter is mad?

Madness would be failure to objectively balance risk and reward. If you believe that high quality lenses will continue to be available at bargain prices, even when denominated in Loonies, then paying a substantial portion of their acquisition costs for UV filters might be described as crazy. It's all a guessing game really; who can predict the future?

My lenses, except those few obtained for specific, unique characteristics long after their production runs ended, were all purchased brand new. I consider the B+W/Heliopan UV filters on them, also purchased new, to be worthwhile insurance policies with appropriate premium costs. Only you can decide what level of insurance is appropriate for your circumstances.

[senderoaburrido]

Absurdly, B&H is a little cheaper. I'm surprised. I might just grab a single 82mm filter for my 450$ lens, as it is both in the best condition and the most irreplaceable of the bunch. I have a load of adapters, so, hypothetically were I feeling that the others need protection in a given situation, I could switch the filter around, as none of them have larger-diameter filter threads.

And one last time: UV filters are worth it over simple clear protectors? They come out to about the same price from B+W, but I just want to be sure I'm not making a mistake. There's absolutely nothing lost in filtering UV?

[Sal Santamaura]

...And one last time: UV filters are worth it over simple clear protectors?...

Yes, they are. Unless you want to accentuate UV-caused haze (and are using a film that responds to UV), nothing is lost in filtering out UV.

[RSalles]

Actually I ask myself why Zeiss, Schneider, B+W, Leitz, Rodenstock, Canon, Nikon etc. make UV filters. Maybe because there is some folks out there which never - in maybe 40 years using cameras - ever had dropped a lens. Agree that a cheapo filter does more harm then good, but a quality one in a very good shape, why not?
I don't see the point where some folks prefer to be parted in 2 pieces by a train, or being hanged in a tree by the neck then using a good and reputable branded UV filter. Another urban legend...

Cheers,

Renato

[Nodda Duma]

I don`t think things get that tragic. I don`t believe a couple raindrops "will surely stain your lens", nor it will need an "inherently abrasive cleanup".
If there is a need of it, just use it; to avoid moisture, sand or whatever. But if there is no sand moisture or whatever, where is the reason? Well, I can wear kneepads or a raincoat everyday just in case I fall or it start raining... Or to use rubber gloves everywhere and all the time to avoid "bacteria and residues" that could make me sick... does it makes sense? With a bit of common sense, life turns easier.

Moisture left on the lens damages coatings. The MgF2 which, without exception, comprises the outer or only coating layer of visible optics, is slightly soluble in water. More soluble in acidic solutions. That includes finger oils and acid rain (raindrops). Finger oils will also etch glass if left unattended. This is a well-known failure mode. Also, salt fog testing for optics can be particularly brutal even on hardened coatings. So if you shoot near the ocean I highly recommend a protective filter.


That said I don't put a UV filter on the front of my large format camera which I use to shoot hand-coated dry plate, since a) it has no threads and b) a significant part of the wavelengths my homemade emulsion is sensitive to is down in the UV. Older uncoated lenses are a little more durable than coated in this one regard. All my other cameras have uv/haze filters in place.

[Doremus Scudder]

I'll add a good-quality UV filter to my lens when shooting in adverse conditions (rain, salt spray, etc.) but otherwise prefer not to for a couple of reasons.

First why add another pair of air-to-glass surfaces to my lens when I don't need to (even if I use a coated filter).

Second, I tend to use filters for a large enough percentage of my shots that taking off the UV filter to mount another one and then the reverse is just too much of a PITA.

Third, I take good care of my lenses and they are clean; the surface of the lens gets uncovered when focusing and exposing; usually the air I shoot in is clean enough not to damage it. I've got lenses I've owned for over 30 years and they are just fine (even older single-soft-coated lenses). Just clean them once with the recommended materials, keep the clean and don't clean them unless needed.

Doremus

[Kirk Gittings]

I keep a good one on until I shoot. Why bother? Mainly because I often times shoot in adverse weather. I can set up and focus etc. and keep the lens clean until I'm ready to actually pull the trigger.

[DennisD]

I keep a good one on until I shoot. Why bother? Mainly because I often times shoot in adverse weather. I can set up and focus etc. and keep the lens clean until I'm ready to actually pull the trigger.

Just another thing to remember (or forget) !

However, I do the very same and remove the uv filter before I shoot.
I'd rather protect the lens than be troubled with other issues. Fortunately, I've never broken a filter.
Having a filter in place has saved me from more problems than not having one.

[Bob Salomon]

Always, when shooting black and white. When shooting color I always use a KR 1.5 Skylight filter rather then a UV. For digital, with lenses longer then 28mm I always use a Digital Heliopan filter. The only exceptions are when I replace the filter with a polarizer.

[Shootar401]

Never used a UV on my 35mm, 120 or 4x5. I have one for some stupid reason, but never used it, never will.