Are UV filters still a best practice for lens ?

[Apple fanboy]

This is a real polarising topic! 😝

I don’t use them. Others do. Neither party is going to convince the other.

If people want to use them or don’t that’s fine by me.

 

[Clix Pix]

Something else I always use is a body cap on the camera. Whenever I am not using a camera and don't have a lens on it, I have the body cap firmly in place. It always bothers me to see photos of cameras without a body cap on them. Seems to me that leaving that sensor area and internals of the camera exposed is not a good idea and is an invitation to dust and other nasties to get inside the camera.

When they are not in use and not actually on the camera, my lenses always have their front and rear caps on, and when a lens is on the camera but not currently being used it wears its front lens cap. Always.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Something else I always use is a body cap on the camera. Whenever I am not using a camera and don't have a lens on it, I have the body cap firmly in place. It always bothers me to see photos of cameras without a body cap on them. Seems to me that leaving that sensor area and internals of the camera exposed is not a good idea and is an invitation to dust and other nasties to get inside the camera.

When they are not in use actually on the camera, my lenses always have their front and rear caps on, and when a lens is on the camera but not currently being used it wears its front lens cap. Always.

Agreed. If changing a lens in the field I do it very quickly to avoid anything getting in there.

 

[bunnspecial]

Something else I always use is a body cap on the camera. Whenever I am not using a camera and don't have a lens on it, I have the body cap firmly in place. It always bothers me to see photos of cameras without a body cap on them. Seems to me that leaving that sensor area and internals of the camera exposed is not a good idea and is an invitation to dust and other nasties to get inside the camera.

When they are not in use actually on the camera, my lenses always have their front and rear caps on, and when a lens is on the camera but not currently being used it wears its front lens cap. Always.

Body caps are definitely a big deal, no argument from me. I actually pulled out an F2 yesterday that I'd relegated to "parts" because it had some damage to the finder(DP-11/F2A finder, so easily replaced but still...). I realized just how nice the body itself was, though, decided my plain prism(DE-1) that was sitting on the shelf would be perfect on it, and kicked myself for leaving it uncapped since I had a VERY dusty mirror and focusing screen(J screen, microprism circle in the center, one I have a love hate relationship with but has its uses and isn't the easiest to find) and ended up having to wet clean the mirror. That's always a tense moment any time you have to touch an SLR mirror...

On dSLRs, you do at least get protection since the shutter is covering the sensor most of the time. Still, though, all that extra dust in the mirror box can't be good.

Along those same lines, too, years ago I bought an F5 and the AF was really flaky. I could get it to work, but it needed super high contrast subjects and good light. It definitely wasn't typical F5 autofocus, which of course seems dated now thanks to only having 5 points, but the even in mediocre light it's generally fast and sure especially on the center point(I'd call it as good as my D5 at least as center point performance goes, although of course the D5 is miles ahead in other areas). Since the body was cheap and I figured I didn't have anything to lose, I cleaned the AF module at the bottom of the mirror box. The body definitely smelled "smoky" and several swipes of methanol cleaned a bunch of yellow-brown residue off the module that I'm guessing was mostly tobacco tar, but probably also dust and other crud. After I did that, it actually focused better than the other F5 I had at the time, enough so that I kept that body and sold the other!(after I'd managed to de-smoke the rest of it).

Mirrorless-I can't imagine not using a body cap, although I'd have to dig deep in the bag for one for the only mirrorless camera I have considering that since I've owned it, the only time it's not had a lens on it if I happened to be changing them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Canon? is the only one that covers the sensor on power off. Nikon and Fuji I know just leave the bare sensor staring at you when you power them off and take the lens off, and I think doesn't Sony also? Just looking at a bare sensor sitting on a shelf on an uncapped body sends a shiver down my spine...although with a 1 year old around the house, the alternative of little fingers poking a shutter on a mirrorless is equally scary.

 

[Clix Pix]

Bunnspecial wrote: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Canon? is the only one that covers the sensor on power off. Nikon and Fuji I know just leave the bare sensor staring at you when you power them off and take the lens off, and I think doesn't Sony also?"

Sony indeed offers the option for the sensor to be covered when the camera is turned off; I use that feature on both my A1 and A7R V. As soon as I turn the camera off, the sensor is immediately covered, and when I remove the lens I can see that. Sony also has an automatic dust-removing cleaning feature as well.

 

[bunnspecial]

Agreed. If changing a lens in the field I do it very quickly to avoid anything getting in there.

That's a big reason why I like using two bodies whenever possible. Field lens changes are sometimes unavoidable, but with two bodies they can often be minimized especially if you're using zooms.

At times I feel weird going somewhere with a 24-70 on my D5 and 70-200 on the D4(or sometimes reversed depending on what I plan to encounter...or namely the D5 usually gets the lens I anticipate using more) but where I can do it and don't mind the weight it's great. BTW, I've gotten so use to the finger nubbins that the D4/D5 is my preferred dual camera pairing, although I can do the D850 with or without grip. I'm mixed on that option since if I need high frame rates, I often don't want to deal with the D850 file size, but also usually want the grip because it bugs me to have one body with a vertical release and one without. The D5 and D4 are also closer to each other in SOOC color rendition, and the D4 still hold about a 1-stop noise advantage over the D850. I'll do the D850+D810 sometimes(or even throw in the D800 in some way), especially if I'm expecting a lot of focus point manipulation on the fly. I still have to mess with the D8xx camera files more than I'd like(and I actually like the D800 files best of all of them) but they're a lot closer to each other than they are to the single digit Nikons.

BTW, I know I'm getting into the weeds on this, but I'd heard rumblings for years from people who said that they liked the SOOC renderings of the single digit Nikons better than some of the other cameras. I do know that when I got my D5 and started using it a lot, I felt like I spent a LOT less time tweaking photos-I often just crop and that's it, where I felt like I was always messing with the D8xx photos(and I've used all three cameras in the series as my main camera at some point for at least a year). The D5 made me also start to use my D3s again more, along with my Df, and that led me to getting the D4 and long with the D3x. A lot of people don't believe it until they really start looking at the files, but it's not an uncommon observation that Nikon has kept color rendition pretty consistent on the single digits from the D2x on forward(although I won't stretch back that far-it's still a great camera but it's too noisy over ISO 400 for my liking and doesn't make sense for me to use alongside full frame) where a lot of the other camera families have been different.

 

[bunnspecial]

Sony indeed offers the option for the sensor to be covered when the camera is turned off; I use that feature on both my A1 and A7R V. As soon as I turn the camera off, the sensor is immediately covered, and when I remove the lens I can see that. Sony also has an automatic dust-removing cleaning feature as well.

Glad that they at least offer it as an option. I don't think Fuji does, although it could have snuck in on a firmware update...especially since I don't check every week, which sometimes seems about the frequency they drop new ones.

I really haven't kept up too closely with the nuances of Nikon mirrorless since I haven't had a need to. IIRC, the Z8/Z9 have a dust shield that looks like a shutter, although of course they don't have a mechanical shutter. I can't imagine it's not an option, but then I genuinely don't know.

The sensor dust shaker hsa been around since the DSLR days. I don't know when Nikon started using it. I'm pretty sure the D3/D300/D700 don't have it, while I know the D4 and D800 do. I feel like it may have come with the D3s? I should know since I have one, and used it not too long ago, although the D3X definitely doesn't have it.

My experience is that the dust shakers do a good job keeping dust at bay at least on DSLRs. I normally set them to run at power off, primarily because I don't want the delay they bring with power-on. With that said, I know my D800 has some dust spots and needs a proper sensor cleaning-I noticed it a few months ago when I was using it on the bellows at a super small aperture and had a white background. It hasn't been a super high priority, though. I've had my X-T5 close to a year now and haven't had a reason to clean the sensor anything beyond what the sensor shaker can do, but I'm sure it will happen. It mostly lives with the 16-80 f/4 on it, which is a "WR" lens, so I'm sure that helps keeping things at least a little bit clean.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Glad that they at least offer it as an option. I don't think Fuji does, although it could have snuck in on a firmware update...especially since I don't check every week, which sometimes seems about the frequency they drop new ones.

I really haven't kept up too closely with the nuances of Nikon mirrorless since I haven't had a need to. IIRC, the Z8/Z9 have a dust shield that looks like a shutter, although of course they don't have a mechanical shutter. I can't imagine it's not an option, but then I genuinely don't know.

The sensor dust shaker hsa been around since the DSLR days. I don't know when Nikon started using it. I'm pretty sure the D3/D300/D700 don't have it, while I know the D4 and D800 do. I feel like it may have come with the D3s? I should know since I have one, and used it not too long ago, although the D3X definitely doesn't have it.

My experience is that the dust shakers do a good job keeping dust at bay at least on DSLRs. I normally set them to run at power off, primarily because I don't want the delay they bring with power-on. With that said, I know my D800 has some dust spots and needs a proper sensor cleaning-I noticed it a few months ago when I was using it on the bellows at a super small aperture and had a white background. It hasn't been a super high priority, though. I've had my X-T5 close to a year now and haven't had a reason to clean the sensor anything beyond what the sensor shaker can do, but I'm sure it will happen. It mostly lives with the 16-80 f/4 on it, which is a "WR" lens, so I'm sure that helps keeping things at least a little bit clean.

Are you sure they are dust spots, not oil spots on the D800?

 

[Apple fanboy]

That's a big reason why I like using two bodies whenever possible. Field lens changes are sometimes unavoidable, but with two bodies they can often be minimized especially if you're using zooms.

At times I feel weird going somewhere with a 24-70 on my D5 and 70-200 on the D4(or sometimes reversed depending on what I plan to encounter...or namely the D5 usually gets the lens I anticipate using more) but where I can do it and don't mind the weight it's great. BTW, I've gotten so use to the finger nubbins that the D4/D5 is my preferred dual camera pairing, although I can do the D850 with or without grip. I'm mixed on that option since if I need high frame rates, I often don't want to deal with the D850 file size, but also usually want the grip because it bugs me to have one body with a vertical release and one without. The D5 and D4 are also closer to each other in SOOC color rendition, and the D4 still hold about a 1-stop noise advantage over the D850. I'll do the D850+D810 sometimes(or even throw in the D800 in some way), especially if I'm expecting a lot of focus point manipulation on the fly. I still have to mess with the D8xx camera files more than I'd like(and I actually like the D800 files best of all of them) but they're a lot closer to each other than they are to the single digit Nikons.

BTW, I know I'm getting into the weeds on this, but I'd heard rumblings for years from people who said that they liked the SOOC renderings of the single digit Nikons better than some of the other cameras. I do know that when I got my D5 and started using it a lot, I felt like I spent a LOT less time tweaking photos-I often just crop and that's it, where I felt like I was always messing with the D8xx photos(and I've used all three cameras in the series as my main camera at some point for at least a year). The D5 made me also start to use my D3s again more, along with my Df, and that led me to getting the D4 and long with the D3x. A lot of people don't believe it until they really start looking at the files, but it's not an uncommon observation that Nikon has kept color rendition pretty consistent on the single digits from the D2x on forward(although I won't stretch back that far-it's still a great camera but it's too noisy over ISO 400 for my liking and doesn't make sense for me to use alongside full frame) where a lot of the other camera families have been different.

I have taken two bodies for that reason. These days I tend to just stick with my initial choice of lens I head out with. I’m too old to want to carry too much with me.

 

[bunnspecial]

Are you sure they are dust spots, not oil spots on the D800?

I thought that was a D600 issue? Don't recall hearing of it on the D800.

In any case, the camera had a full CLA and new shutter in 2017, and I'm certainly hoping that if there were shutter issues in the original, the replacement fixed it.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I thought that was a D600 issue? Don't recall hearing of it on the D800.

In any case, the camera had a full CLA and new shutter in 2017, and I'm certainly hoping that if there were shutter issues in the original, the replacement fixed it.

The D600 was notorious for it yes. But it’s plagued many Nikons.

 

[kenoh]

Quite a timely post. I have previously been in the UV for the bigger filter thread lenses - as a measure of probability of hitting a bigger target. I was unlucky enough to lean over when carrying a telephoto once. I managed to hit the objective lens on a protruding branch even though the lens had the substantial hood on. It scuffed the coatings on the lens and took the smile off my face for a good month or so.

Generally though I don't use them as they add another reflective surface to mess with your image. I use other filters for intentional effects such as Tiffen mist, Lee NDs and polarizers - major personal idiot milestone when I realised that the polarizer is what makes the foliage pop in a woodland scene and that helps cut through light to preserve the detail in distant objects (I know, idiot).

Just recently I have noticed the frequency of getting a green reflective spot on a 28mm lens I have been protecting. Equally a previous camera I had exhibited a funky red grid pattern in some situations (some kind of reflection of the sensor array).

So I am moving towards the no UV filter camp with the exception of large diameter objective lens telephotos. I always use B+W filters where possible, or Lee squares for the heavy artillery.

 

[bunnspecial]

Something that most of you who have this sort of lens probably know but is probably still worth a mention:

If you have a lens with a rear filter drawer, generally speaking you must have a filter mounted in it. The reason for this is that the designers accounted for the refractive index of the filter glass when designing the lens, and they're usually far enough back in the optical path that leaving it out WILL make a difference in the lens's performance. Even if it's a standard 52mm thread(that's what most of Nikon's big gun lenses use, and I don't think they're particular unusual in using that size) it's usually a good idea to stick to filters made by the maker of the lens both for physical fit and because they likely are the closest match to the optical characteristics that the lens was designed around.

Of course if you need a filter that the maker doesn't offer, by all means use what you need provided it fits, as your reason for using the filter probably is worth any potential loss in optical quality. That's true too if you use the gel holder that some lenses come with. In general, though, I usually just leave whatever the lens came with in there, which usually is going to be a clear or UV filter. I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure my 300 f/2.8 has a UV in it, and my 300mm f/4 has an L1A(Skylight). I do have one of the purpose made polarizers for the 300 f/2.8, which is a nifty piece, but haven't used it other than a little playing out in the yard. The latter is fun since I think it's 39mm, but most of the 39mm filters out there are too thick to fit. The 300 f/4 has a gignantic screw-in front thread that no one ever uses(for some reason 97mm comes to mind, but don't hold me to that). I'd guess you could probably screw a filter into the front of the 300 f/2.8, but you'd have to hunt to find one that size(never measured it, but I'd guess it's maybe 6" or so, which would be 150mm or so).

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Just a check-in here;

Are UV filters still a best practice for lens ?
Who’s using them, who’s not, and why?

My prior cameras T1i and 70D and all the myriad of lens I had used a UV filter on. Reasons were .. protection from damage , glare, etc.

On my R5 and it’s 2 lens, I always shoot with a L lens, the lens hood it came with on, and don’t use a UV filter.

From the web;

🔎 why use a UV filter on a camber lens - Google Search

www.google.com

Just one of the many, this from 2016:
“One of the primary reasons to use a UV filter on a camera lens is to prevent lens flare and ghosting. Lens flare occurs when light enters the lens at an angle and reflects off the internal elements, causing a hazy or washed-out appearance in the image.”

So, as the lens I buy are high end L , they have coatings already to mitigate lens flare.
I feel no need UV filter, nor desire something in my light optics path, as these are $2k+ lens …

I saw this in a selling area which prompted this thread.
(I sold my beloved EF 70-200 mkii last year)

Agreed. Hood always (unless impossible) and skip the UV filter.

 

[mtbdudex]

Delete

 

[Dutch60]

In general, I don' t use any filter. In harsher environments (windy/sea/dust/etc.), only a protective filter....but only top quality filters! If necessary I do see usefulness of ND grad filters. But I never used them.

 

[delsoul]

I always used them in the film era to correct for certain lighting conditions, etc. These days, I only use them if it comes free in a lens + filter combo, or I keep them on my Leica lenses just for peace of mind. Will it actually do anything to protect them, probably nothing that the lens hood wouldn’t do. Maybe keep finger prints off from the occasional finger touching the front glass but that’s nothing that can’t be cleaned in seconds with a Zeiss wipe or MF cloth. I live in a dusty dry area so I try to keep them on the Leica lenses too to keep dust out but I do occasionally go naked with them too. I’m a believer that anything you own, if you don’t want anything to ever happen to it, then you better not use it. And if you’re not going to use it, then why do you have it.

 

[mtbdudex]

I’m here in Cancun Mexico for spring break 2024, and decided to play with my iPhone 14 and my polarized sunglasses

It’s easy to see how polarized lens works , and more so you can’t remove reflections in post processing.

Of course the sunglasses applies a wrong color to the whole image thru the iPhone .
When I do my eyes looking at sand with & without the glasses the sand still looks like white sand both ways.
The human brain is amazing.

 

[Chuckeee]

I’m here in Cancun Mexico for spring break 2024, and decided to play with my iPhone 14 and my polarized sunglasses

It’s easy to see how polarized lens works , and more so you can’t remove reflections in post processing.

Of course the sunglasses applies a wrong color to the whole image thru the iPhone .
When I do my eyes looking at sand with & without the glasses the sand still looks like white sand both ways.
The human brain is amazing.

Did you play with rotating your glasses? I used to commonly use polarizing filters to enhance cloud in sky images. The green tinge brings back memories of shooting under fluorescent lights without a filter.

 

[mtbdudex]

Did you play with rotating your glasses? I used to commonly use polarizing filters to enhance cloud in sky images. The green tinge brings back memories of shooting under fluorescent lights without a filter.

I actually did!!
Just like circular polarizer lens on camera , gives varying degrees of reflection…

6-7 weeks back I took a picture of car meter cluster reflecting off the left inside window to my eye at dusk condition, it was really annoying to see from peripheral vision .
Was wondering how polarizing the inside of glass locally might mitigate that .

 

[bunnspecial]

I actually did!!
Just like circular polarizer lens on camera , gives varying degrees of reflection…

6-7 weeks back I took a picture of car meter cluster reflecting off the left inside window to my eye at dusk condition, it was really annoying to see from peripheral vision .
Was wondering how polarizing the inside of glass locally might mitigate that .

Please pardon the pedanticisms, but I want to mention something that's often a point of confusion.

A "circular polarizer" is one where, to overly simplify things, basically polarizes the light coming into the lens and then unpolarizes it. That's not 100% accurate, but it works as an explanation.

A "linear polarizer" just polarizes the light, and leaves it polarized coming out the back of the filter.

For photographic applications, both are normally round filters(usually in a screw mount, sometimes bayonet depending on what they are meant to fit) in a rotating mount to allow you to get optimum effect from them.

A whole lot of cameras use beamsplitters, or some form of semi-silvered mirror, in various parts. Even back in the manual focus days, Canon used them for metering in the F-1, New F-1, FTb, a few others, and even made the entire reflex mirror out of them sometimes(Pellix and a few special purpose high speed cameras). Circular polarizers started becoming a really big deal with autofocus in the 80s, as nearly all SLRs use a semi-silvered area on the main mirror to divert light to the autofocus module(which is usually at the bottom of the mirror box). If you use a linear polarizer on these cameras, you can get the crossed-polarizer effect and the meter and/or AF system will "black out." A circulular polarizer keeps this from happening.

Now you're hard pressed to find a new linear polarizer, although with mirrorless cameras it really shouldn't make a difference. The end result is the same. In the past, linear polarizers just tended to be better, or at least that's my subjective observation comparing 70s and 80s ones. I only have a couple linears around-a couple of 52mm Nikons(which are wonderful pieces-they use an oversize filter so there's no chance of vignetting, and are actually locked to only rotate 180º) and a B+W in Bay 50 for Hasselblad lenses. Compared to a circular polarizer, a linear just has less glass so they tend to transmit more light and also tend to be more neutral. With that said, my modern circular polarizers are superb. I have a few Hoya "Moose" polarizers, which combine an polarizer and an 81A(more meant for film, but still work fine on digital) and a few high end Nikons. The 82mm Nikon was a painful purchase, but it's one of the brightest and just overall best polarizers I've ever used. It should be for what it cost!