Are UV filters really necessary?

[bmyates 3]

Although this topic has little application underwater, virtually all of us also use our cameras topside, and after responding to a question on this topic over on DigitalDiver.net, it occured to me that it would be interesting to get the input of Wetpixelers on the subject. Here's most of my post from DD:

 

I recently attended a two-day "nature photography" seminar in Orlando put on by John Shaw, a well-known nature photographer (www.johnshawphoto.com), and experienced a total paradigm shift on the subject of UV filters.

 

I have always religiously purchased a UV filter for every lens I bought, because someone once told me (back in my film SLR days) it was crucial to protect the lens from getting scratched. In fact, I've often kept UV filters on lenses inside camera housings underwater (how bright is that?!) because somewhere in the back of my mind, I was worried about scratching something...I guess when moving the camera in and out of the housing. Despite my doubts that the "UV light correction" aspect of such filters was really of any value (I just figured "it can't hurt"), I bought into all the FEAR OF DAMAGE propaganda...hook, line and sinker.

 

In his seminar, John Shaw said (I'll attempt to paraphrase accurately) that he thinks buying/using UV filters is a huge waste of money. He said he has gotten rid of all his fancy filters EXCEPT polarizers because anything you could do with other filters you can now do in Photoshop after the fact (assuming you shoot RAW). Because a polarizing filter is SO useful in nature photography, and its effects CANNOT be duplicated in Photoshop (or any other editing software), he considers that THE essential filter, on the condition that you buy the best one you can find (i.e., Nikon or Canon BRAND), not some cheap off-brand. He did say that occasionally he sees a use for a graduated ND filter, but that's the only other kind of filter he owns now, and he seldom uses it. In general, he either uses a polarizer or no filter at all.

 

As for needing a UV filter to "protect" your lens, he said:

 

A. he is very careful with his lenses, and if something happens that damages the front element (e.g., dropping it), it will likely have damaged a lot more than a UV filter would have protected, and;

 

B. the cost of replacing the front piece of glass in most lenses is not much more than the cost of a good UV filter, so for all the money you would have spent buying UV's for all your lenses, you can easily afford to replace a scratched front glass now and then, and finally;

 

C. why put an extra piece of glass between you and the subject if you don't really need to?

 

Well, let me tell you, I was stunned! It was as if someone suddenly told me all that talk about the earth being round was a myth, and it had now been proven to be flat! But the more I've thought about it, the more sensible his position seems. I've never scratched the UV filter on the front of a lens; I've just spent a lot of money on them (I coulda bought several more lenses with that money!)!

[MikeVeitch 0]

I don't own a single UV filter myself....

[Stewart L. Sy 12]

What's a UV filter?

 

Stu

[Ryan 48]

UV Filters keep camera stores in business. A lens hood will do as much to protect a lens, and will not have a negative optical affect.

 

I don't own a single UV Filter.

[segal3 0]

Wait...you're saying you don't have meteor insurance?

 

 

Buying UV filters means spending more money, no? <_ src="%7B___base_url___%7D/uploads/emoticons/default_biggrin.png" alt=":D"> Have none currently - then again, my topside shooting is a fractional percentage of my photography.

 

~Matt Segal

[TheQ 0]

I use UV filters in harsh environments. They are nice for keeping sand and salt spray off the lens element. I don't use them underwater.

 

Yes, they are expensive... but they are cheaper than a new lens element, especially elements on high end lenses. You can't field replace the lens element if something scratches it.

 

Heck, I've even been known to swap UV filters simply to save time in the field. Cleaning modern coated lenses can be a real pain sometimes.

[james 0]

Hi,

 

Digital sensors are extremely sensitve to bounce-back reflections. This has caused all sorts of trouble for N, C, and Kodak with their early cameras and lenses. Digital lenses are supposed to have a special coating on the rear element to help w/ this.

 

Adding a straight UV/Haze filter to your lens can (I don't say will) compound this problem.

 

With that said, I'm going to use one of the swim platform. I don't think it's necessary for use in an underwater housing, where your port is the protector.

 

Cheers

James

[dhaas 32]

In 25+ years of dabbling with SLR cameras and their lenses I've gone hot and cold on this. Coatings are actaully tougher than we realize, and unless you are shooting in Iraq most of us probably don't take photos daily in environments that could / would damage our lenses....

 

I confess to having a decent B&W filter on my Canon 17-85mm USM IS and 70-200mm F4L lenses. The one on the 17-85mm is even a 010 UV haze which a great photographer friend swears give his digital files a bit of warm punch. I only have it on for splashes like James mentions....I probably could live without it and the one on my 70-200mm F4L since I use the lens hood anytime I shoot it.

 

As far as UW, I never leave one on......

 

YMMV

 

dhaas

[Viz'art 24]

Never underwater, never in studio, always outside, tell John to check the price of a front element for a 17-55 f:2,8 ! I had filter save me lenses on three different ocasion, either impact or scratches and a spark from a welder and that was a Hasselblad 38mm Biogon that got is tush saved that day. I've changed many filters over the years because they became scratched, sorry guy's but I don't buy into that B.S. just make shure they are the top maker, coated and neutral such as the NC serie from Nikon. I for one prefer giving some money to the camera shop than to the repair shop and I'm a former camera repair tech by trade.

[allen 4]

Great timing on the subject as I have been wondering about this for UW.

 

I have had UV filters on my film lenses since day one. But this is for topside where most of my shooting has been in harsh environments, Utah deserts where grit is very common especially in the slot canyons and while doing apline climbing where I often clean water (in all three forms) off my lenses using a glove/sleave or whatever is handy. My old camera/lenses showed the use and abuse of this but after 20 years the lenses were still in great shape. A few of the filters were not due to dings into rocks.

 

As TheQ mentioned is that while traveling because a filter can be removed it gives you one "ah shi*t" opportunity.

 

James you noted adding a striaght UV filter is not a good idea. What about MC UV filters such as theones from B&W?

[Craig Ruaux 0]

I do not own a single UV filter. I, to, am an acolyte of the John Shaw approach.

[Donovan 0]

The only time that I don't use a Uv filter is underwater and in a controlled environment, like a studio shoot. Any time you work outdoors there is always the possibility of foreign orbjects impacting your lens. The filter is cheap insurance. Uv filters have saved me on many occasions.

I still remember the first save.

I was shooting the Grand Prix of Monaco when a piece of rubber came off a tire. The piece cracked the filter. I simply replaced it with one off an unused lens and kept shooting.

Splash

[Paul Kay 62]

"Never underwater, never in studio, always outside"

 

Excellent, succinct and spot on - well said. If you shoot from boats then salt spray is a constant problem - leaving it to dry on a front element is asking for trouble, it is after all corrosive. I look on filters as disposables, after a year or two mine usually need replacing due to the state that they are in, interestingly I've never noticed any image degredation!

[Rocha 0]

...interestingly I've never noticed any image degredation!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's because you are not looking at your pictures at 300% on a 30'' high resolution monitor! (a.k.a. pixel peeping) Joking apart, I do own a couple of UV filters and put them on when I am shooting at the beach or in windy conditions, especially with the 17-55. Having said that, I haven't scratched a filter yet.

 

Luiz

[shark8matt 0]

An aspect of this discussion that hasn't been touched on yet is use with Magic Filters. I recently purchased a magic filter and used it with my Canon 10-22 mm EFS on a 20D. Since it is simply a gel I placed it on the lens and used a UV filter to hold it in place. I guess I could have used a diopter instead but was told it wasnt necessary with my setup and I was pretty happy with the pictures despite overcast skies causing low light levels (making higher ISO -400-800 -shots necessary to get decent shutter speeds). I am just curious as to what type of input anyone has with this set-up. I know I was very happy with the performance of the filter and hope to use it in better conditions in the future with the UV as part of the set-up...

 

cheers!

 

- MDP

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

I think using a UV filter for a magic filter holder should work great. I wouldn't want to use a diopter unless I had to, so a UV filter is certainly preferable. AS long as your UV filter is clean and in good condition it shouldn't affect image quality noticably. Remember there is so much cr***p in the water between you and the subject anyway.

 

In the strictest sense, the best solution optically would be to use the filter holder described on the website, but I wouldn't obsess about it either way.

 

Who am I to contradict John Shaw? I've heard both sides of this but here is my take. I take off my UV filters when I shoot underwater. I like to have them on my lenses otherwise. It allows me the freedom to walk around with the camera without the lens cap on. I would obsess too much otherwise about protecting the lens. This way I don't worry about the lens and I won't miss as many shots.

 

Another point. I think pro photographers have a different perspective on this because their camera gear is their business investment. If it gets damaged they just buy another. Its part of the cost of doing business. If not having it on gives them a slight edge, or never using a lens cap gives them a few shots they would miss otherwise, its worth it against the potential replacement of their tools. I feel the same way about the tools I use at work.

 

As a hobbiest I can't afford to replace my kit as easially. It comes out of my discresionary spending which is a pretty darned small slice of my income (nearly non-existant in my wife's mind). <_< So I view the risk-benifit calculation more carefully.

 

Now if someone can show me that it costs <$40 to replace the front element on a 12-24mm Nikkor then I would change my mind.

[fdog 3]

Every lens I own and use has a UV filter. My equipment takes a beating and so does every shooter's I've worked with.

 

They take all the abuse. When they get too beat up, I replace them, usually an annual thing.

 

They certainly don't take any special care; a lick and a swipe from a tee shirt is the usual cleaning.

 

I don't even know where my lens caps are. Fast reactions and getting the shot mean a lot more (to me) than the last 2% of image quality lost to a UV filter.

 

I suppose these above water considerations are moot when underwater, but, I guess it's just inertia for me. And I haven't seen any real issues by using UV filters.

 

All the best, James

 

 

PS...and if by some miracle I absolutely needed that extra 2% of quality, I'd just take the filter off. The glass underneath is pristine, despite how scratched up the lens barrel looks.

[RogerC 4]

put me in the "Never underwater, never in studio, always outside" camp.

 

Go outside and try a good UV filter. Take a picture of a distant horizon. They do cut haze. I'm a big fan of filters of many colors besides UV and polarizer, it's an easy way to get a good effect.

 

people who say they can do anything in photoshop, why do they still have cameras?

[echeng 0]

I use UV filters whenever I am near salt water. The salt spray inevitably puts a nasty, driet coat on the filter, and I'm always glad it's not on the lens itself.