UV are you using them? Just started to think about buying them...for 35mm and 135mm....its pretty hard to put the front cap on the lens...if the hood is attached.
Afraid that some day will scratch, damage....etc front glass during that operation.

And it makes real difference between 50$ UV filter and 90 $ UV filter?

Is the UV filter affect IQ?

Sobax wrote:
UV are you using them?

Sometimes, for protecton against the elements (wind, sand, rain, etc)

Just started to think about buying them...for 35mm and 135mm....its pretty hard to put the front cap on the lens...if the hood is attached.

Why do you want to put a cap on when you have the hood attached

Afraid that some day will scratch, damage....etc front glass during that operation.

The front glass isn't easily damaged. But it is always a good thing to use your lenses with a little care. In situations when you really need to worry about damage, the filter won't be of much help... like when dropping a lens... a shattered filter can damage a front element pretty badly.

And it makes real difference between 50$ UV filter and 90 $ UV filter?

If you must use them, use the multicoated ones. The are better resistant against flare.

Is the UV filter affect IQ?

Watch out for flare... Other than that I have never seen any negative effect of an UV filter on IQ (I use the multicoated expensive pieces of glass ).

Nope. Never.

Yes. Always. Cheapest insurance I can think of. I have yet to encounter anyone who can say with absolute certainty 100% of the time which shot was taken with, or without filter - and be right about it....

Sobax wrote:

And it makes real difference between 50$ UV filter and 90 $ UV filter?

Is the UV filter affect IQ?




Oreder from this place, you will be paying much less:

http://maxsaver.net/

Good filters doesn't effect IQ much, but I don't use them in low lights.

filter or no filter...one question that gets grown men's panties in a bunch.

filters protect against things like sea spray, fingerprints, dust, dog tongues, mild impacts and such. canon recommends using filters to complete the environmental sealing on some of its lenses. high quality filters won't diminish the sharpness/contrast of your lens (e.g., multicoat B+W, in my experience). it's possible that you could experience increased incidences of flare, but i've only noticed this in instances where i wouldn't have been surprised to see flare even without a filter. i often use my filters more or less as 'tranparent lens caps.'

it's no nevermind to me if you use filters or don't, or what your reasons are. do as you like. i personally have B+W multicoat filters on all my lenses. ymmv

My MP-E has a B+W UV on it. Why? to protect it from scratches and jumping spiders. It's the one lens I know I won't have flare/ghosting problem.

Like so many things in photography, once we start saying "always" and "never" things get remarkably opinionated, and that seems especially true regarding UV filters.
Personally I keep them in my bag and use them in situations where they are clearly of benefit: blowing sand or grit, water spray, on 17-55 IS lenses, etc.
I never use them when they are more likely to cause issues: night or low light photography, with the sun or strong lights in image.
In between those extremes I don't use them because I don't think its cost effective (i.e. people state their $70 filter saved their $1,500 lens, when actually it just saved them a $170 front element replacement). And for several lenses the front element costs less than a good filter (the front element for the 70-200 f4 IS, for example, costs $47) .
The other thing that's kind of counter productive in this discussion is that many of the newer, most expensive wide angle lenses have front elements that eliminate to option of using a filter. The 17 TS-E and Nikon 14-24 f2.8 for example. But those same lenses have hoods that offer little or no protection.

Thank you.
Visited maxsaver (thanks for a link - didn't know about them.great prices)...bought one B+W and one Hoya.
So my new primes will be protected in a few days

RCicala wrote:
Like so many things in photography, once we start saying "always" and "never" things get remarkably opinionated, and that seems especially true regarding UV filters.
Personally I keep them in my bag and use them in situations where they are clearly of benefit: blowing sand or grit, water spray, on 17-55 IS lenses, etc.
I never use them when they are more likely to cause issues: night or low light photography, with the sun or strong lights in image.
In between those extremes I don't use them because I don't think its cost effective (i.e. people state their $70 filter saved their $1,500 lens, when actually it just saved them a $170 front element replacement). And for several lenses the front element costs less than a good filter (the front element for the 70-200 f4 IS, for example, costs $47) .

DITTO

No don't need them with digital but if I need protection I use the clear protector filters less money same quality

I have them, because I"m anal about touching my lens front elements. However, I've taken them off lately, and haven't been using them.

If you have the hood on, don't worry about the cap. A lot of PJ's run around without lens caps.

Filters degrade AF performance esp UV on wide angle lenses and cause internal reflections. Use a lens hood. Unless you are going into a dust storm you dont need one.

thepiecesfit wrote:
Filters degrade AF performance esp UV on wide angle lenses and cause internal reflections. Use a lens hood. Unless you are going into a dust storm you dont need one.

Totally agree I was one of the people who would never go without a filter but I have learned that one doe snot need one and your better off not using a filter IMO unless you are in an area of dust or sea spray. I always use a hood and use care when handling my lens

tanglefoot47 wrote:
thepiecesfit wrote:
Filters degrade AF performance esp UV on wide angle lenses and cause internal reflections. Use a lens hood. Unless you are going into a dust storm you dont need one.

Totally agree I was one of the people who would never go without a filter but I have learned that one doe snot need one and your better off not using a filter IMO unless you are in an area of dust or sea spray. I always use a hood and use care when handling my lens


While scientifically I know it degrades IQ, I am willing to bet my UV filters that you cannot tell the difference in 99 percent of the photos (pulling out an arbitrary number, but still).

Only under the most extreme conditions:

Some hoods provide much better protection than others. I don't use one on my 400 5.6, for example, and this lens sees much more "rough" use than my others do. However, if I'm using my 24-105 or 17-40 around my 2 little ones, situations like Stan posted above can happen often, and those lenses' hoods don't do much at all to protect the lens' front element. It's not that I think they're going to really damage anything with their wet, slimy little fingers. It's just that it's easier to pop a filter off and clean it up away from the lens.

RCicala wrote:
Like so many things in photography, once we start saying "always" and "never" things get remarkably opinionated, and that seems especially true regarding UV filters.
Personally I keep them in my bag and use them in situations where they are clearly of benefit: blowing sand or grit, water spray, on 17-55 IS lenses, etc.
I never use them when they are more likely to cause issues: night or low light photography, with the sun or strong lights in image.
In between those extremes I don't use them because I don't think its cost effective (i.e. people state their $70 filter saved their $1,500 lens, when actually it just saved them a $170 front element replacement). And for several lenses the front element costs less than a good filter (the front element for the 70-200 f4 IS, for example, costs $47) .
The other thing that's kind of counter productive in this discussion is that many of the newer, most expensive wide angle lenses have front elements that eliminate to option of using a filter. The 17 TS-E and Nikon 14-24 f2.8 for example. But those same lenses have hoods that offer little or no protection.

I'm with Roger. Once a lens collection goes beyond 2 or so lenses, it becomes financially questionable to purchase high quality filters for all lenses. It takes much more than many people think to scratch or damage a front element. And even if the worst case happens, it's usually a fairly simple and cheap repair. Even two front element replacements are likely cheaper than than buying a number of B+W, Heliopan, Rodenstock or Hoya Pro1 filters.

I have 2 high quality filters (77/72mm) for my L lenses and they only go on if conditions warrant it. My lens hoods are much more reliable than a filter at protecting my glass, and they positively improve IQ to boot.

my $0.02 Canadian

RCicala wrote:
...... (i.e. people state their $70 filter saved their $1,500 lens, when actually it just saved them a $170 front element replacement). And for several lenses the front element costs less than a good filter (the front element for the 70-200 f4 IS, for example, costs $47)......


Actually, when you read about how some UV filter saved someone from an unfortunate drop, you also invariably read "the smashed filter ring is stuck and I can't get it off. Should I send it to Canon so they can charge me $x.xx"?

Then you can also find the situation where the front element has been scratched because the relatively cheap and thin filter glass has been scratched either during the break or as the unfortunate "dropper" damaged the "droppee" in their salvage efforts..

I specialize in night photography, and I always use UVs, skylights or protective filters. I've never noticed any reflection issues, and find that the flat filter is much easier to keep clean or replace in the field than a front element. When I sell my kit on I always get mint prices which is nice because my front coatings are immaculate - freely admit I am anal about that.

Also, people say that it is easy to replace a scratched front element. Only 35mm format lens I ever had disassembled by its manufacturer never went back together as sharp as it had been before (with 2 attempts by the workshop) so be careful! BTW that happened before I moved to Canon so don't look at my profile and make 2+2=5! It wasn't a Canon lens.