To UV or not to UV

[AlphaZeroOne]

Does anyone have any thoughts on what the benefits are (or not) of using UV filters on my DSLR. Are DSLR's CCD sensitive to UV?

Thanks

[Kev Lewis]

Originally Posted by AlphaZeroOne

Does anyone have any thoughts on what the benefits are (or not) of using UV filters on my DSLR. Are DSLR's CCD sensitive to UV?

Thanks

The main use of a UV or skylight filter is 'protection' of the front lens element. They do provide a very small amount of contrast improvement by reducing the UV but it is almost insignificant.

Personally I dont use them as they introduce two more glass surfaces into the optical path and unless they are spotlessly clean and you have a good lens hood they will promote flare which reduces contrast and softens an image.

[DaiTheDragon]

As Kev says they are used by most people to protect the front bit of glass. I always use a lens hood for protection and i paid a lot of money to get the best glass i could afford so why put another bit of glass in front of it.

Dai

[eeyore]

it very much depends on what you are doing - kev and dai have a point about introducing glass into the optical path - but on the otherhand if you arte working in environments where there is a lot of salt spray , grit or othernastiness blowing arround it does make sense to protect the front element of "the best glass you can afford" as it is a lot cheaper to replace a filter than a thousand pound lens. - the trick to maintaining optical quality is to pay the extra to have a decent quality filter rather than buying the cheapest you can find

[Hobjob]

I agree with all that has been said - but I'm a clumsy oooooo
and have broken two UV filters which otherwise would have been
deep scratches to the lens, if not cracks.

[matt_xyz]

I have UV filters on both my 400mm and Sigma 150mm lenses, purely for means of protection. The fitted lens hood does a similar job on the 400mm, but the idea of scratching the actual lens glass scares me whitless so I've taken a belt and braces approach. On the Sigma 150 I often get within inches of insects, especially when the extension tubes are fitted, so adding a 3 inch lens hood on the front would significantly reduce my working distance.

the UV filters I bought were both Canon sharp cut filters that cost around £40-50.

Matt

[eeyore]

i took a cricket ball on the front of the little bigma once completely lunching the lens hood and filter but the front element of the lens was unharmed - it had to go to the nice men at sigma to get the AF mechanism realigned though

on another occasion a (captive) leopard pounced its foot into the end of my 70-300 and again the filter saved the lens from damage (I got a nice black eye on this occasion)

Then there was the occasion on which a giraffe dribbled all over the front of my 90mm macro - for those that dont know giraffe slobber is corrosive to the optical coating on the lens so again the filter saved the day

so yep in my experience the lens filters protective properties outweigh the very slight impact it has on the optical path

[glsammy]

I've got UV filters on all my glass, and boy am I glad I have. I've just had to change the one on my 150mm, it had a chip out of it right in the centre. How it happened I don't know, but I'm so pleased it was the filter that took the damage rather than the lens. No amount of talk about any potential light loss or disadvantages will stop me from using them.

[AlphaZeroOne]

Originally Posted by eeyore

i took a cricket ball on the front of the little bigma once completely lunching the lens hood and filter but the front element of the lens was unharmed - it had to go to the nice men at sigma to get the AF mechanism realigned though

on another occasion a (captive) leopard pounced its foot into the end of my 70-300 and again the filter saved the lens from damage (I got a nice black eye on this occasion)

Then there was the occasion on which a giraffe dribbled all over the front of my 90mm macro - for those that dont know giraffe slobber is corrosive to the optical coating on the lens so again the filter saved the day

so yep in my experience the lens filters protective properties outweigh the very slight impact it has on the optical path

Then I guess that the argument is settled! UV filter to protect the lens from slobbering giraffes is clearly a must! I think that I might stay away from the West Midlands Safari Park if they are going to mess up my lens!

Next question - what constitutes a decent quality filter. Isn't it just like sunglasses - the cheapest is just as good as the most expensive. How would you recognise quality? Is it just by name. Surely filter manufacturers don't produce low quality products. A filter is a filter is filter, isn't it?

[pressld2]

When I bought my 80-400 zoom I bought a Hoya skylight 1B at the same time. It added £50 to the bill and if it got scratched or chipped I would whimper a bit but it's nothing compared to the river I would cry if the lens got damaged.

As for "what constitutes a decent quality filter" I really don't know. I could have bought a cheaper one, even from Hoya, but this one is supposed to have super-dooper, extra special, new and improved flare-reducing coatings and I just went by the principle that "you get what you pay for". If it had been a brand I'd never heard of I might have been sceptical that they were pushing the price up to make it seem like a quality product but with respected names like Hoya, Cokin or Lee I very mich doubt that they would. The photo magazines I have read all seem to rate Lee the highest but they are also the most expensive so we're back to "you get what you pay for".

The clearest, cleanest, sharpest photos I have ever taken have been with my D70 and the 80-400 with filter attached. (Mind you, I've taken some absolute disasters with that kit too!)

Dave P.