re-igniting the UV filter debate!

[arthurking83]

https://youtu.be/P0CLPTd6Bds

Steve Perry makes a video on the topic of UV filter usefulness.
It's 18mins long, and while it's a little long .. definitely worth the watch.

If you can't be bothered watching, the overall conclusion is that UV filters are a waste and are really only useful in very few specific conditions(as he says at the end).
If you do watch it, note at how much impact resistance the lens has against impact!

I mentioned it years ago when I had a broken lens I wanted to stress test .. they are very hard to break, and if you try too, you'd chicken out way before the lens gives up!

[Lance B]

I haven't used UV filters since I went digital. Best protection is your lens hood.

[arthurking83]

..... Best protection is your lens hood.

I can't remember using UV filters even in the film days either tho!
Strange thing is that the best UV filter for your sensor is actually the lens itself!
UV filtration for film was unnecessary a very long time ago, when many lenses even as far back into the 60's had very good UV attenuation.
(this is part of the UV imaging issue in itself!)

As for protection, a lens hood is always the best way to do so, but it doesn't help against flying debris such as rocks/stones or other projectiles.
That's why this video is good at highlighting this point .. but the point made(in this video) is that a UV filter is actually weaker as a form of protection than is a simple piece of (copy) paper!
Steve Perry states this himself, but doesn't really show it in the video .. where his contraption couldn't break a piece of plain paper at a set force, yet at the same force level many UV filters still shattered.

[swifty]

To each their own but I've never bought one and have never used one either and I'm happy with my position.
I've always maintained that it is more of a protection against chemical sprays rather than impact protection. But I do understand the argument from the other side. Should there be an impact not enough to shatter a filter but enough to scratch a front element then filters might offer some protection.
Now whether a scratched front element does much to degrade IQ is another story. I seem to remember a lensrental blog entry on just that.
But a scratched front element does degrade the resale value though.

[ameerat42]

Well, I'm glad somebody's long-winded!!! He hardly stops for a breff.

Oh boy, that ugly blue cast!:rolleyes:

[MattNQ]

Trust Arthur to stir everyone up again about UV filters :lol2:

I was just watching that video this morning.
Kind of confirmed my opinions on UV filters.

I did cringe as he smashed the lenses though - Its uncomfortable to watch - much like when Richard Hammond drove over a Mustang & Porsche with an Abrams tank in one of his TV shows :eek:
When shooting outdoors I often have a CPL and/or hood on anyway.

[ameerat42]

On an issue like this there can only be opinions. I didn't watch past about 1/2 way, so... who ???s what he ended up with.
All the way thru, though, he was hedging his statements - as he should have. So I thought, if by the middle there's no clear trend...:rolleyes:

For the record: I used to use UV or Skylights in the film camera days just because... [insert anything here]. I now don't - for no better reason.
Boy, how foolish I used to be, though. Why! At any time one of those rod contraptions could have come hurtling into my lens, and then what
would the filter do?

Nah! You're right:th3:/wrong:angry34:/neither:confused013/both;)/[other options might be available:nod:]

[Kym]

If you can't be bothered watching, the overall conclusion is that UV filters are a waste and are really only useful in very few specific conditions(as he says at the end).


We could have told you that :lol:

[arthurking83]

..... Should there be an impact not enough to shatter a filter but enough to scratch a front element then filters might offer some protection.
.....

If you haven't watched the vid, then what Steve Perry claims(and shows) is that the impact that can break a filter is so low that the same amount of force can't even break a piece of standard copy paper .. let alone scratch the front element of your lens.
So comments made all over various photo related sites, where a user claims that their UV/protection filter was smashed and 'saved' their lens are misleading at best.
The impact that smashed the UV/protection filter was 'low' enough to shatter the filter .. but almost certainly not enough to have damaged the front lens element.

[swifty]

Yes, sorry I haven't had the chance to watch it. Just anecdotally I've seen some pretty tough filters, not necessary UV ones but specifically built for impact protection. I forget the actual product name right now.
I don't know how strong these are relative to the front element but there are so many filter to front element combinations out there such that surely there will be some filters that are strong enough not to shatter at forces that might chip or scratch some front elements.

[arthurking83]

I think Hoya make their HD range of filters that are super tough.
I also recently noted that Kenko also have a super tough filter glass type too .. can't remember it tho.
I don't think Steve Perry tested those, and only really tested the more commonly purchased cheaper types(not cheap crappy stuff .. just the cheaper end of the spectrum).

I'm fairly sure you'll be amazed at the results of the video, especially towards the end of it where he tests impact results with the a filter on the lens, as 'supposed protection'

Note that the lenses he used are mainly cheapo and older stuff(Canon FD's and cheap kit lenses and stuff).
The small amount of force needed to break the filter on an old Canon 70-700 FD lens was minimal(from memory about 0.5lbs .. about 200g or so, or less) .. yet the lens itself was undamaged.
The amount of force required to break the lens was about about 4lbs, 2kg, or so and the front lens element was basically unbroken(until a second attempt made to break it!) .. but the lens itself was damaged internally.
The summary is that most front lens elements appear to be stronger than the combined lens itself .. where zoom mechanisms or internal lens elements seem to break more easily.
The end result is that the front lens element is not likely to need protection as much as the lens itself is. And while the front lens element may be fine, the rest of the lens is probably trashed.

From this, if dropping the lens is a fear, then nothing beats a well designed lens hood .. and extrapolating the data Steve Perry just collected, it has to be a flexible/pliant type to cushion the effect of the fall.

[swifty]

Just watched it and I can't say I disagree with any of his conclusions.
But he does admit it's not all that scientific nor exhaustive.
We don't know what the scratch point is of front elements relative to shattering point. Nor do we know characteristics of the shatter when various filters break. At least the commonly used ones as seen in the video seem to shatter into lots of pieces whereas I've seen some that crack but remain intact, like what you see in bulletproof glass or windscreens when it breaks. It shatters but not into shards but stays intact as if held together by a film.
Again, I'll just reiterate I'm comfortable with not using it and I only use my hood but I can't discount that in some scenarios it provides some protection against cosmetic chips and scratches, plus chemicals/dirty fluids of course. I just feel the envelope of protection is too narrow to be worth the while to screw one on plus the downsides of extra costs both monetarily and possible degradation to IQ.

[teylward]

That was an interesting video to watch.
It definitely lets you make up your mind by yourself. Beginners to photography do get fed a lot of opinions on what to do and what not to do, which can often lead them astray.
I have often used a UV filter, but wondered why and if it is actually providing protection. I don't use one at the moment and don't use one when I have an ND filter or CIR-PL filter on.
My photography isn't often in a situation that could be potential for lens damage, but now I might access the situation and make the decision on whether to use it or not. 90% of the time would be not to use one and just have the hood as protection.

Thanks for the video.

[Cage]

I would think of a UV filter, but wouldn't rush out and buy one, if I was shooting in an environment with lots of salt spray or similar, where constant cleaning was a necessity.

[Glenda]

I've always relied on my lens hood to protect the lens. And, to stir the pot there are a few members of our local camera club who swear by uv filters but they are all Canon shooters.:D

[Fruengalli]

I don't use UV filters as such but the Hoya HD Protector. Supposedly 4 times stronger than regular glass, seals the L lenses at the front element & as Cage notes gives me a sacrificial surface for cleaning in harsh environments.

[glennb]

I don't use UV filters as such but the Hoya HD Protector. Supposedly 4 times stronger than regular glass, seals the L lenses at the front element & as Cage notes gives me a sacrificial surface for cleaning in harsh environments.

I as well, and Im only guessing, probably less image quality loss too with having no "UV filtering" stuff through it.

[Mark L]

So what's the difference between cleaning the front of the lens and cleaning a piece of glass in front of the lens??


And, to stir the pot there are a few members of our local camera club who swear by uv filters but they are all Canon shooters.:D
Oh dear, and I was thinking about joining my local camera club. :(

[arthurking83]

So what's the difference between cleaning the front of the lens and cleaning a piece of glass in front of the lens?? ....

Ah! one of only two real reasons(ie. that make any sense) as to why you'd want to use a protective filter on your lens.
If you were working with limited time, the easier thing to do is to have a selection of already cleaned filter ready to go in situations where the front of the lens may get dirty with high frequency and regularity!
So instead of wasting time cleaning anything, you just replace the filter quickly enough and keep shooting.
The other reason for protective filters is as already said .. some lenses need a filter to complete the sealing of the lens from the elements.
Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D is another lens that has an open front entry into the lens itself. Dust and stuff gets in, if you don't use a filter of some sort to seal off the front of the lens.

As for cleaning a filter as opposed to cleaning a lens .. give me a lens any day of the week to clean!
I have a few lenses, and can't ever recall any of those lenses being hard to clean .. ever.
OTOH, filters are(or can be) a royal pain in the bum to clean sometimes. Although in saying that I have never cleaned a UV/protective filter(I think) . all my filers are either polarisers(of some type) or ND ... or very delicate plastic grads.



..... And, to stir the pot there are a few members of our local camera club who swear by uv filters but they are all Canon shooters.:D



.... Oh dear, and I was thinking about joining my local camera club. :(

I think there may be a possibility that you may not fit in! :p
otherwise!! .. what you could do is to acquire the cheapest filter you can get your hands on .. doesn't even need to be a UV filter! ... could be anything at all.
All it is that you actually want(to help you fit in) .... is the filter ring. So, irrespective of what the filter actually is(or if it's good or not) you would then remove the filter element which simply leaves you with a filter ring. Screw this onto your lens.
It gives the appearance that you have a protective/UV filter on your lens, but you known that nothing could be further from the truth. Then comes the obvious question .. would the other Canon owners notice .. and how long before you'd get found out :D

[Fruengalli]

So what's the difference between cleaning the front of the lens and cleaning a piece of glass in front of the lens??

.


Oh dear, and I was thinking about joining my local camera club. :(

Living on the coast it's a constant battle with salt & sand & I figure I'll eventually damage the lens element

[ameerat42]

Living on the coast it's a constant battle with salt & sand & I figure I'll eventually damage the lens element
...and that's because time and tide wait for no-one:D - Darn sayings!:rolleyes:

I'd be using a UV filter:nod:

[arthurking83]

Living on the coast it's a constant battle with salt & sand & I figure I'll eventually damage the lens element

there is a summary down below!

I'm fairly confident you most likely won't. (unless you are seriously heavy handed with it).
I'm not a light fingered person by any means(but also not overly heavy handed either).
My Sigma 10-20mm lens is my most heavily used lens I have. It was my staple lens to have on the camera at any one time, and I think has resulted in well over 75% of all my 100K images over a 9 year period. It's seen much sea salt spray desert sands(mostly) some wet grass(oops! :p) and my fist :devil1: one day when it simply refused to work on the D70s wayy back(a dirty connection issue).
Lens is still good(although a few knocks have probably misaligned some internal elements over time) .. but the main point is front element is as good as the day I opened the packaging.
Being a wide angle lens .. of course this also means photos of kids almost always resulted in hand and finger prints on the front element too. Nothing that a drop of Eclipse fluid on a pecpad won't easily remove ;)
I once had a broken Nikon 18-35 lens to 'play with', and used a dish scourer sponge(green scotch brite type, supposedly heavy duty) on the front element to see how hardy they are. Result was that with light rubbing(wet of course) no visible damage.
Generally speaking my lens cleaning method was mostly .. a bit of (bad?) breath and a wipe with a microfibre cloth. For badly smeared fingerprints tho, Eclipse and a pecpad was always easier to do in minimal time.

Summary: as Steve Perry points out in his video .. the front element of a lens is quite hardy .. and probably a lot more hardy than you think, or dare to prove yourself.

[Fruengalli]

Thanks A83....but I'll stick with my insurance

[Brian500au]

Now I have finally settled into Singapore after my move from Belgium I decided to pay a visit to the orchard display at the Singapore botanical gardens. My lenses of choice here this time was a 70-200 and my beautiful 85f1.2.

When I arrived I grabbed my 85mm out of my bad and mounted it - I then pulled off the lens cap and this is what greeted me.

https://creative.smugmug.com/photos/i-vMJ8j8X/0/L/i-vMJ8j8X-L.jpg

I vaguely remember picking up my camera bag in Belgium as I was leaving and a lens fell out - it was in a soft lens case and I was in a rush so I did not check at the time for damage. All my lenses are L lenses so they will take a bit of a battering - and I really did not want to be worried about a lens when I was already under the pump moving anyway.

Now I am not in either camp when it comes to filters - I use them sometimes in adverse conditions and at other times I would prefer to shoot without them. If the filter is on the lens and it causes no distractions then I leave it there - but if I buy a lens without a filter then I just leave it without.

In this case I wonder did the filter save the lens or did it just make things worse? Did the lens just fall on the right spot at the right angle to dint the filter just enough to break the glass (it is a heavy lens) or could it have been worse if no filter was attached. I am not sure and I am not going to try to recreate the experiment to come up with a definite answer :lol2:

Anyway the filter is now stuck on the lens and I will need to drop it off at Canon here in Singapore to get it removed and checked out for any other damage. This won't change my attitude towards filters, but it will change my attitude about picking up a camera bag when in a hurry.

[ameerat42]

We've got a thread running on this topic somewhere... Looking...

- - - Updated - - -

Yep... Found it. Will shift your post into that thread as it is relevant to the discussion there.

- - - Updated - - -

Done.

[Mark L]

Yep... Found it. Will shift your post into that thread as it is relevant to the discussion there

Done.

But what if that's not a UV filter on the front of Brains lens??
People who are not interest in a re-ignited UV filter debate will not see Brains question about "Is this a argument for or against filters":confused013
There may be some things relevant to both discussions, but I reckon they are two separate discussions.:confused013

And Brain, front of the lens would have survived the impact that broke the filter. The broken filter probably wouldn't scratch lens, but if it wasn't there it definitely wouldn't scratch the lens. Then there's lens hoods as possible protection. But of cause that's got nothing to do with the OP.:D

[Brian500au]

Just a follow up from my previous post re my broken filter.

I dropped it into Canon (literally speaking of course) in Singapore and asked them to remove the broken filter and check the lens for any further damage. The result was a small mark (not a scratch) on the front element but nothing to concern myself with - it is really not noticeable and has no effect on the shots taken with the lens. The lens was pulled apart and checked over for any other damage. The result was a clean bill of health.

Total cost of the repair - zip, zero, nada. Canon Singapore did if free of charge letting me know if I want the front element replaced give them a call and they will do it for me (but reiterated it was not necessary). That is what I call service with a capital "S". I knew there was a reason I have stuck with canon for the last 35 years.

[Mark L]

^ that's all good to hear Brian :th3:
But what's it got to do with a UV filter debate?:lol:;)

[Brian500au]

^ that's all good to hear Brian :th3:
But what's it got to do with a UV filter debate?:lol:;)

Asked the mods to send it to the review panel but still come back sin binned :lol2: