No more UV filters ever again

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

I've always been reluctant to put UV filters on my lens for protection. But for my current long trip to Africa I bit the bullet and bought some expensive multi-coated UV filters. They're now off the lenses and never to return.

Two of my lenses, the Canon 70-200 f/4L and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR, absolutely never have flare unless I'm pointing them directly at the sun. Ever -- they're both amazingly sharp lenses with essentially no flare or chromatic aberration. But with these UV filters (which were in the $50 range) there has been a ton of flare (BIG flares), and I've been really unhappy with the color rendition and sharpness. Every concern of mine about UV filters has been realized.

Anyone want to buy them from me?

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:49 am

Well with a recommendation like that, who wouldn't! LOL

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

I'm quite the salesman, eh? Hey, anyone want to waste your money just like I did on these worthless pieces of crap? I'll give you a good price, $50, just like when they were new!

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:44 am

I dont think I have used UV filters, however with your astounding recommendation may look into some.

:)
I hope your image capturing has gone well in Africa, look forward to viewing some of them.

Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 18

So what filter do you suggest instead just for protection from scratches--- I'm not keen on having no protection at all at the front of my precious lenses?

Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 577 Location: Rochester, NY

Did you use a lens hood?

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:29 pm

pip22 wrote:

So what filter do you suggest instead just for protection from scratches--- I'm not keen on having no protection at all at the front of my precious lenses?

Well, first of all, a couple of minor dings in the front element won't really affect image quality too much (although if they add up you can start seeing reduced contrast & flare problems, which would be ironic given the reasons for avoiding UV filters). I never use UV filters because I think they're a hassle, and a waste of money (I'd be spending a couple of hundred for filters to fit all my different threaded lenses).

You have to decide what you're more worried about - possible image problems, or possible lens damage. I try to be careful with my lenses, so I don't use them. Sure, accidents can happen, but it's not like I go bushwacking with my lenses sans lenscap. Keeping your hood on can give a bit of protection - at least in terms of deflecting objects that you might bump the front elements into. And if you always cap your lens when you aren't actively shooting you're probably pretty safe.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

pip22 wrote:

So what filter do you suggest instead just for protection from scratches--- I'm not keen on having no protection at all at the front of my precious lenses?

I suggest a lens cap to protect your lenses. You can use it 100% of the time except in the 14 seconds it takes to take a picture.

I always keep it capped, and I always use a lens hood. Now if I get a week off at the end of my trip I'm thinking of travelling up into Mauritania, which is smack in the middle of the Sahara; probably a good idea there because the risk of sand-abrasion is so high. But the only risk my camera has faced so far here is getting stolen.

My super-wide angle is the only one I really worry about, but that's largely because the front lens element is more or less the size and curvature of a medium sized nectarine, so it's just sticking out there begging to be smudged. But super-wides have such problems with flare anyway (all of them do) that it would be a big mistake to throw a UV filter in front of it.

Joined: 19 Oct 2005 Posts: 99 Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma

I've always used the inexpensive UV/Skylight filter on my lenses with no problems. I have had my lens saved by one when a sprint car spun ont he track and showered me and others with clods of dirt, one which cracked my filter but not my outer lens element.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

KCAction wrote:

I've always used the inexpensive UV/Skylight filter on my lenses with no problems. I have had my lens saved by one when a sprint car spun ont he track and showered me and others with clods of dirt, one which cracked my filter but not my outer lens element.

I have some very high quality lenses with which I have a lot of experience shooting without the UV filter. The Tamron 28-85 f/2.8 compares quite favorably with a lot of pro lenses, and the Canon 70-200 f/4L is a pro lens. I've been floored by the amazing quality of these lenses, esp as compared with the cheaper stuff I used eariler (the Canon kit lens and a quantaray 75-300 telephoto). And I noticed a difference almost immediately after putting on the UV filters. Maybe it's chiefly on the highest quality glass that the difference is most noticeable, because however good a UV filter may be you're still putting cheap glass in front of all your expensive prized lens elements.

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:34 pm

Don't throw out those UV filters just yet.

The thing to do is to use them for what they were designed to do: filter out excessive UV.

So, while you are there, you might as well climb Kilimanjaro. Use the UV filters above 6,000 or 8,000 feet of elevation.

The only time I use my UV filter is when I am at elevation. I have several heavily used lenses that are 30 years old and are scratch-free. The biggest cause of scratches, from my observation, is frequent and overly aggressive lens cleaning.

You could have saved some money on filters. I've posted this opinion before. BUT NO ONE EVER LISTENS TO ME!!

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

packard wrote:

Don't throw out those UV filters just yet.

The thing to do is to use them for what they were designed to do: filter out excessive UV.

Good advice for film users, not digital. There is a UV filter over the sensor, rendering them essentially impervious to UV light, and the rest is filtered out by the lens elements.

I tried this on an airplane once, taking pictures with and without the UV filter from 10,000 meters or so. No difference. You may argue that the plane filters out UV, but not so (or not well) -- there is known to be a lot of radiation exposure in an airplane (a lot more than you get from, say, a chest x-ray).

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:48 am

OK, Paul, then use them as skipping stones at a nearby lake.

UV filters, slide rules, engine cranks, buggy whips: all gone--worthless--Oh, Lord!! What is this world coming to!!

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

I bet skipping on water is one thing they actually do well :)

Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posts: 545 Location: KS - USA

Paul, not sure this spells the end of UV filters. What it has shown is that putting inferior glass in front of quality glass yields inferior results. Kind of like taking your restored Jag E-Series to Earl Scheib for a paint job. ("I can paint ANY car for 29.95!" - for those of you with long memories).

Don't know that I'd totally write this off without using higher quality UV filters. May make a difference - may not. But is anyone willing to spend big $$$ on a UV filter to find out?

I'm still undecided. Normally, I really try to do everything I can to spare then lens, and keep the cover on as much as possible. However, in rain or water spray - the UV filter worked out well and kept me from having to clean the lens itself and potentially damaging the coating on the lens. Anyway, I've about decided to keep them off, unless I'm in conditions where it may warrant the use of some kind of protection over the lens..... Or until I get some quality lenses where there's a big difference.