Do you use a UV filter with your lenses?

[pdxflint]

For the most part, I don't practically see much difference with or without a good filter attached to my lenses... but...
I do notice how often I have to gently blow off or wipe the dust or residue (water drops, dog nose goo, accidental fingerprint or smudge) off the front glass, whether it's bare or wearing a filter. Some lenses have more fragile front element coatings than others, but all coatings are vulnerable to being worn off, even if the glass is not scratched. I always carry a clean, very fine microcloth in my bag, and a exhalation of breath on the lens and a quick, very light wipe usually get things all sparkly again, so I think I'd rather risk wearing out a filter's coatings than my lens's. One Nikon L37c UV 77mm filter has already shown some signs that it's done it's job well over the years, and is essentially now retired due to the coating starting to wear. It is an old filter, but I'm glad it's not the front element on my equally old 80-200 lens.

The problem is, really good filters (optically/light transmission/anti-reflective) cost more than many kit lenses, maybe even many basic lenses... which is a big consideration. Insurance could be a good alternative there for the money, although it might be tough to make a claim for lens coating slowly wearing off... but that's outside of my area of expertise.

Of course in a more controlled environment (landscape or studio/portrait stuff) or in challenging outdoor light situations, the filters absolutely come off...

 

[VirtualRain]

One other factor that would be interesting to note, is the cost of replacing the front element. Let's say it does take a nasty ding, scratch, or the coating's have worn out... What would an authorized repair center charge to replace the front element?

UPDATE: To answer my own question, a quick google search seems to indicate that it costs anywhere from $150-$300 to replace a damaged front lens element.

 

[telecomm]

Another thing to consider might be the relative durability of filters vs front elements. I've got a reasonably good-quality polarizer (Hoya Pro1 CPL), and it's very prone to picking up tiny scratches + smudges, much more so than the lenses it's used on. I don't use any other filters and just keep the lens cap on when I'm not shooting, and all of my front elements are in basically new condition.

It's also worth nothing that you've actually got to do some pretty serious damage to a front element to noticeably affect the image. This gets posted every once in a while in the forums.

 

[VirtualRain]

It's also worth nothing that you've actually got to do some pretty serious damage to a front element to noticeably affect the image. This gets posted every once in a while in the forums.

LOL! If this is even remotely true, then I'm stunned and amazed... (for those to lazy to click-through)...

Apparently, this...

took this...

 

[azboricua]

LOL! If this is even remotely true, then I'm stunned and amazed... (for those to lazy to click-through)...

Apparently, this...



took this...

I don't believe that for one second.

 

[toxic]

I don't believe that for one second.

and why wouldn't you? did you actually read the article?

the front element is a thick hunk of glass. it's stronger than any filter, and some scratches or marks will not affect performance at all, mostly because it's the very first element and light has time to "correct" itself. a damaged rear element is something else.

 

[pdxflint]

No doubt the rear element is more critical, and especially on telephotos the front element can be pretty nicked up and still take decent images, although the flare issues will reduce contrast. Wide angles are more likely to reflect the imperfections, especially when stopped down.

I tested two identical 17-55 f/2.8 lenses to see which one I would keep, and the images were identical at all focal lengths and f/stops until I hit f/16-f/22. Then one lens started to show spots in the image, especially in the sky. It looked like sensor dust, but more defined. They were on the same camera body, so it wasn't the sensor. I looked at the front elements, and there were a few smallish dust particles on the guilty lens's front element. It did not have a filter on it. The other lens actually had a UV filter on it (I was also testing for image quality differences with the filter I was using, even into the sun) and I had given the filter a quick wipe before hand. When I blew the dust off and cleaned the lens gently, I re-tested and the spots were gone. I never would have known at more normal f/stops, but it just shows that scratches or cracks like that shown above would certainly show up in the images if the lens were stopped down a fair amount.

It also showed me that there was no meaningful difference with a good quality UV filter, and it is always removable...

 

[HBOC]

I too carry a microfiber cloth and also the GIOTTOS air blower. It does an amazing job for getting the dust off, and should be in everyones bag.

 

[Westside guy]

That was pretty funny/cool/interesting.

 

[RaceTripper]

Since I shoot motorsports, and do it at dusty, dirty, gritty, and sometimes muddy race tracks, I put UV filters on the front of my lenses (Nikkor 17-5/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 VR). If I bust the UV filter it costs me $80 or so. If I damage the front element that's a lot more. The UV filter has no discernible negative effect on PQ that I've ever seen. Next week I'm off to the 12 Hours of Sebring and will also have a Nikkor 300/2.8 VR in tow. There are no UV filters for the front, but it does have a large carbon fiber hood to help protect it.

 

[blockburner28]

A women in bestbuy was trying to sell me the 10.99 ones. Are they really worth it?

 

[Jaro65]

The first I do is put a UV filter on a new lens. It is much less expensive to clean the UV filter than to rub against your lens' glass.

 

[telecomm]

It is much less expensive to clean the UV filter than to rub against your lens' glass.

I find that cleaning my filter and cleaning my front element costs about the same.

 

[pdxflint]

A women in bestbuy was trying to sell me the 10.99 ones. Are they really worth it?

In a word... no. But at the same time, for inexpensive kit lenses I wouldn't buy an $80-100 filter which might cost nearly as much as the lens itself. It's probably cheaper to simply not use a filter on a cheap lens, which can be inexpensively replaced if you damage the front element.

 

[wheelhot]

Hmm, I understand with both sides opinion regarding the filter and no filter issue but I do have a question, in the case like 14-24 which can't accept filters, what then? Don't tell me to avoid the front element not being scratched, it should only be used in a clean environment

I heard people mentioned that these days the front element of lenses is harder then in the old days and considering the bulging front element of the 14-24, I'm guessing Nikon added extra strength coating to prevent it from scratching easily?

Also I read somewhere that it's not that expensive to replace the front element? Is that possible?

 

[firestarter]

Hmm, I understand with both sides opinion regarding the filter and no filter issue but I do have a question, in the case like 14-24 which can't accept filters, what then? Don't tell me to avoid the front element not being scratched, it should only be used in a clean environment

I heard people mentioned that these days the front element of lenses is harder then in the old days and considering the bulging front element of the 14-24, I'm guessing Nikon added extra strength coating to prevent it from scratching easily?

Also I read somewhere that it's not that expensive to replace the front element? Is that possible?

Always use a lens hood, get insurance and just get on with it!

 

[heyisti]

I never use any UV filter, if you know your Camera well enough, you don't need to, but I do use a clear filter just in case i drop the lenses.

 

[wheelhot]

Always use a lens hood, get insurance and just get on with it!

That lens already come with a built-in non-removable lens hood

 

[firestarter]

That lens already come with a built-in non-removable lens hood

Well, that's one less thing to worry about isn't it?

Do you actually own this lens - or is it something that you're seriously thinking of buying... or are you just 'shooting the breeze'?

 

[88888888]

http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-52mm-Neutral-Density-Filter/dp/B00004ZCB5

is this a decent neutral density filter?

Or any other suggestions. My budget is 50 bucks. 52mm

 

[wheelhot]

Do you actually own this lens - or is it something that you're seriously thinking of buying... or are you just 'shooting the breeze'?

The 2nd part, seriously thinking of buying. Just had concerns over the no filter thing since I'll be mostly using it during weddings and events

 

[840quadra]

I use one for my photography due to the chances of the front element getting damaged without it. The UV Filter is nothing more than a rock guard for the off-road motorsports I shoot. That said, I try to use a good quality filter like B&W and the likes.

Without it, I have actually had front elements that have gotten chipped!

 

[RaceTripper]

I use one for my photography due to the chances of the front element getting damaged without it. The UV Filter is nothing more than a rock guard for the off-road motorsports I shoot. That said, I try to use a good quality filter like B&W and the likes.

Without it, I have actually had front elements that have gotten chipped!

I just did the 100 Acre Rally. I was on a stage where I got pelted by gravel for every car going by. The routine was ready-pan-duck. I was glad I had my UV filter on because it took a hit on the rim. Of course at the end my gear and I were totally covered in dirt.

 

[HBOC]

http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-52mm-Neutral-Density-Filter/dp/B00004ZCB5

is this a decent neutral density filter?

Or any other suggestions. My budget is 50 bucks. 52mm

I have 2 Tiffen 72mm filters. One is a neutral density and one is a polarizer. Tiffens' quality has gone down over the years. I was in a tight spot (in Seattle on a Sunday, only place open was Ritz, blah) and needed something for that day.

I would stick with B&W or maybe Hoya. My next filter is going to be Singh-Ray!

 

[maddagascar]

yes, i use a filter for my lens. but i do use the ones from best buy. the brand is "SUNPAK" are they any good? i have a UV filter and a neutral density filter. the neutral density filter is awesome and works very well. i just wouldn't be able to compare it to any other filter though..soo what are good quality filter brands?