Do you install a UV filter on your LF lenses?

[Sal Santamaura]

I know I have a terrible habit of reviving these dead threads...

It's not a terrible habit. It's the right thing to do. Please keep doing it!

...Is there any reason to purchase a UV filter over a clear protector filter? Maybe, in filtering UV out, UV filters ever-so-slightly darken the image...

The degree of tonal effect depends on how much UV is present in the scene. I keep a UV filter on all lenses I own, regardless of camera format. Little or no UV -- same as clear. UV -- gain the benefit of haze reduction.

...I was going to pick up some Hoya clear filters...

NEVER. Why put a cheap piece of glass in front of an expensive one. Also, some say they do so to protect the lens, but if it is dropped and the filter breaks there is a good chance of damage to the lens.

Protecting lenses is more than just providing a possible sacrificial covering in case of impact. The more important function, in my opinion, is to afford a front surface that takes the beating of exposure to elements and required ongoing cleaning. How many times have used lenses been described as having "cleaning marks?" They don't get any if one instead cleans the attached UV filter.

As for putting "a cheap piece of glass in front of an expensive one," I suggest choosing from B+W and Heliopan filters, which certainly aren't inexpensive. Made from top-quality optical glass, their multicoated versions do not degrade lenses' performance, and their brass rings don't gall when screwed into aluminum front cell female threads.

[Alan Gales]

Just my 2 cents.

I bought a Contax 35mm camera and 5 Zeiss lenses back in the 1980's. I always kept Contax UV filters on the lenses. I never tested my lenses with and without the filters but I never noticed degradation to my images due to the UV filters.

When I decided to buy an 8X10 camera just a few years ago I needed to sell my Zeiss lenses to help finance the 8x10. I sold all my lenses on Ebay and got top dollar. All 5 buyers were very pleased with the lenses. One contacted me and said he was amazed at how well the coated optics were. He asked me how I cleaned my lenses. I told him I just cleaned them properly like most photographers did but the key was that I seldom ever cleaned them. I just cleaned the UV filters.

I have kept this same practice up with medium format and large format lenses. If a shot is real important like Kirk says you can always remove the filter. I also remove them to use other filters like polarizers, neutral density filters or colored filters for black and white.

[Two23]

It's normal installing a UV filter on 35mm lenses. The filter also servers as the protector. How about your LF lenses? Do you install a UV filter or protector?

Never use UV filters. Do use colored filters when shooting film (as I only shoot b&w film.) NEVER use filters on my Nikon DSLR lenses. They're more apt to CAUSE damage than prevent it. Personal experience. UV filters are very thin and break easily, and the broke glass is second only to diamonds in ability to scratch a lens. Again, personal experience. I do use lens caps when not taking a photo--those will stop just about anything up to a .22 bullet! Also always use lens hood. Those deflect crap from hitting lens in the first place. It would cost me more to put a coated UV filter on all my lenses than a repair would. I shoot outdoors almost daily for over 20 years now. Have NEVER had an element scratched because a filter wasn't on it. Have had two lenses scratched because a filter WAS on it, which broke and then scratched the lens. Also, I do get image degradation from having filters on so I avoid using them routinely.


--->Filters are more apt to damage your lens than protect it.


Kent in SD

[senderoaburrido]

As for putting "a cheap piece of glass in front of an expensive one," I suggest choosing from B+W and Heliopan filters, which certainly aren't inexpensive. Made from top-quality optical glass, their multicoated versions do not degrade lenses' performance, and their brass rings don't gall when screwed into aluminum front cell female threads.

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. 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. 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?

[neil poulsen]

I avoid them. I think I have one on my 90mm that I remove prior to exposing an image. It helps protect the lens during transit; my Schneider cover for this lens doesn't stay on very well.

[jose angel]

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?

I`d think on the lenses or situations where a protection filter is certainly advisable. If you like, say, kayaking, just buy a cheap filter to be attached in the zoom lens you like to use. Or if you have a photography project in a windy beach, or you want an image of the mud coming out from a motocross wheel... just buy an affordable one than can be used on several lenses. To shoot a grandma`s portrait sitting on a living room you actually don`t need a protection filter.
What I (personally) think you don`t need, is to attach a super expensive top brand multicoated fancy filter on every one of your lenses, just in case a raindrop fall over it. If so, you`d need a bunch of high performance filters (=$$$) to be used under any situation, like backlighted or stray light scenarios where a cheap one will show its weaknesses.

[Jim Jones]

Protective filters are nearly a necessity in some environments. In the past 65 years I've had to retire two lenses because I rarely used a protective filter. The pair cost under $200. Film cost in that time was thousands, and other equipment much more. I've discarded a few irreplaceable photos due to reflections from the uncoated filters we used in those early years. Filters are like condoms; you don't need them if you don't go in harm's way.

[ottluuk]

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?

I did some thinking on this a while ago. I figured that if a good quality UV/clear filter of appropriate size is more than ~1/10 of the value of the lens, it's not really worth getting for that lens. The chance of catastrophic damage that would be avoided by a filter is pretty small – in typical use by me – YMMV. I use lens caps and hoods whenever needed. I clean the glass rarely and lightly.

Avoid cheap filters. Some lens designs are particularly sensitive to putting crap in front of them. My old Canon 50mm macro was pretty nasty with some filters – not only did it pick up flare but it actually lost a noticeable amount of sharpness.

[Noah A]

I keep B+W brand MRC filters on all of my lenses. I've run tests and not noticed any difference in image quality. But I do work in some rough and dusty conditions, and I know the protection has saved me from a few expensive repairs.

[Alan Gales]

This thread reminds me of me and my friend Harold's argument. I use UV filters and he does not except for when shooting in mountains.

We both have our reasons but are not about to change the others opinion!