Are UV filters really necessary?

X

xtian

Member
Local time
1:15 PM
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
23
I am a newbie... in a sense, i've been using UV filters all through my SLR color/film/digital days. But moving into Rangefinder B&W area.

and was wondering if UV filters help or not or negate things. Then the question of Multi-coated/Single-coated UV filters, then we have brand... ugh... and now going to lenses that are MC/SC... so many variables... should I just shoot naked with a hood? ... you guys know what I mean... -_-

help~
 
The Party Line from Leica is that they shouldn't be used. I use them on some lenses and not others. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference UNLESS you are shooting into the sun or other powerful light sources, in which case they can add to flare. But when my wife tripped 15 years ago and the front of her lens hit a rock, she was AWFULLY glad it was the filter that was smashed and not the front element.

Cheers,

R.
 
I was all-filter-on-every-lens with my Nikon DSLR and didn`t use any filter when I started using RF cameras. Now, on my Noctilux and Super-Angulon, I have UV filters permanently. After two or three hours in heavy snowfall, it is more convenient to clean the filter compared to the front element (and this on a nearly daily basis).
 
The only lenses that a filter is "necessary" are when the thickness of the filter is part of the optical path. Most of these have the filter behind the optics, like a mirror lens, or internally mounted. Same is true when removing the IR blocking filter from a CCD to allow it's use in IR- you have to replace the filter with one of equal thickness.

Otherwise, it's a matter of choice. I use them on my lenses mostly to preserve the front element. On some lenses that are too "cold" (in rendition) for my taste, I use a Skylight 1A or 1B.
 
Last edited:
If you're above 2000 meters (6000 feet) in the mountains or high plains, a UV might help alleviate the excessive blue in the atmosphere.

Elsewhere, (ordinary altitudes) a multi-coated UV can protect against the weather. And, BTW, it's easier to clean a filter than the lens - - and filters are much cheaper to replace.
 
There are huge threads about this debate. People are passionate about this subject.

If it doesn't cause optical problems (ie a good quality filter) then why not protect your investment? I bought a collapsible summicron that is 50 years old and always had a UV filter. What a beautiful lens! I'm so glad someone cared enough to preserve it for me to use!

With modern flare reduced lenses, I don't need a lens shade. I just have a filter for protection and I'm good to go...A gentleman is always prepared ;)

cheers
 
I have always used the best uv filters i can afford on my slr lenses, as i tend to keep my camera on a wrist strap as i`m walking, so (i think) it`s more vulnerable to damage especially out in the countryside (from trees etc).

The only lens i didn`t fit one to was scratched on the front element a few weeks after i bought it. That was a Sigma 70-300 apo & was damaged while walking down a narrow bushy lane......should have been more careful:bang:

I`d rather replace £50 worth of filter than wreck a lens.

Ken.
 
You have good lenses so get good filters for protection. B+W MRC filters seem to be the most readily available. Not cheap, but excellent quality.
 
UV filters make a difference with B&W film. Most B&W films are sensitive to UV light and on bright days a good UV will reduce fogging due to UV resulting in a slight improvement in apparent sharpness and clarity.
 
I do find that the filters cut uv haze. On the better lenses I use a high grade filter but on the lesser I use a lesser filter. I would not put an expensive filter on an inexpensive lens. My personal experience is that lenses with filters do not become easily damaged through carelessness or accidents. The filters take all the bruising. I have even had a filter wear out after many years. It was a high grade UV filter. Better the filter than the lens. (I can not count how many times people have touched the lens element, even thrown snow into the lens. Luckily they were covered with a filter.)
 
I use them at expensive lenses. They will also protect during transport. A lens cap can fall off.
I have never seen a real quality deterioration when using good filters. If I want to make sure that I get the best possible performance, I can easily remove them...
 
I try to always use them for protection. Its amazing how grungy a lens front element can get even in ostensibly clean environments. Accidental finger prints aside, moisture in the air seems to settle with pollution etc and if you are going anywhere near a beach, forget about it. So sooner have to clean a $20 filter than risk marking the front element of a several hundred dollar lens. And of course I have bumped the front of my lenses from time to time as the camera hangs around my neck. The filter (and hood ) helps in this respect. It may be anal, it may be over the top but there you go, its cheap insurance.
 
I'm a UV filter user too, and agree with just about everything stated above! I've heard the no-filter arguments too... Anyway I'm more inclined these days to be more particular about the quality of the filter.
 
Its amazing how grungy a lens front element can get even in ostensibly clean environments. Accidental finger prints aside, moisture in the air seems to settle with pollution
Click to expand...

This exact problem was why I started using filters years ago. I was taking photos around Sydney just on the side of the road and around town of the buildings with traffic going past and by the end of the day the front element was covered in an oily pollution grime. Given that Sydney isn't as busy as London, LA or NY , I would think the problem is even worse there. Since I have always used Multicoated Nikon or B+W for my rangefinder stuff.

I have never had the glass smashed but the camera once swung on a strap and dented the ring of the filter. The dent would have been on the side of my lens so it was worth the price of the filter. Here in Australia, especially if you go back to nature it either dusty or sandy so it is good protection there. I never really even considered the UV reduction aspect although Im sure that helps. I generally use UV filters but on on lens that was colder than the others in my kit I put a skylight on instead.

One cheat I find with the Voigtlander lenses with the small built in hoods is that if you have a UV/Slylight on it you dont need to remove the hood when you want to attach a 2nd correction or polarizing filter as the protective filter raises the threads to put on a 2nd. People may cringe at 2 filters but I haven't had vignetting even with their 21mm.
 
is this still going on? I know people are trying to be helpful, but this is one of those threads that would really be best served by hitting the search button - here or on ANY photo related forum, and you will have a night full of reading on your hands... To give you an idea, its pretty much this thread, over and over and over:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom