Generally people seem to think that the cheaper UV filters do muck up the image quality, but I'm not sure exactly how. Others have professed to buying these same filters in a pinch and finding no significant problems. I picked them up purely for budgetary reasons, but don't have enough experience to know whether they have degraded the quality of my photos in anyway.Nikon D4055-200mm Nikkor VR / 18-55mm Nikkor (Kit lens) / Enthusiasm..

...in fact, if anything, the quality wil be clearer if you get a "multi-coated "UV filter.. Typically, these are more expensive than the uncoated UV filters, but worth the money in that reflections between the lens and filter may occur, causing a little "haziness" if you will....

As I may not be explaining in a way that makes sense, I include two links I found in a "quick google":.

This one is a "short answer":.

Http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#uv.

This one requires MORE reading, but more complete to help you make decisions. Take the time to read the whole thing as it answers your two questions in different places:.

Http://photonotes.org/articles/filters/.

Hank IIIhttp://www.pbase.com/hhcubed..

Any lens consists of Elements, usually glass. The quality of that glass & it's ability to display that which is in front of it, without distortions of any kind, determines the cost of a particular lens..

Almost any lens will offer up some sort of distortion, what we pay for in those multi-thousand doallr lenses is to minimise that distortion, in order to get the most perfect image possible..

Now, any filter is nothing more than adding another "element" to a lens..

Obviously, the quality and ability of that filter to reproduce an image is going to have an affect on your phtography..

Personally, I use a UV filter on every lens I own. I take it off for Macro work, certain low light situations, but generally leave them on the lens..

Put simply, I'm willing to accept the slight loss of image quality, to better protect my $2K Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS..

Too, your front element is going to get dirty, at some point. Every lens needs the occasional cleaning..

If my lens is going to eventually get cleaning marks, it is going to a replaceable filter, not the front elelment itself..

I buy B+W UV MRC filters. I;ve used Hoya's and never noticed a difference n my images but I did have a hoya lock up on a lens thread once. Took a pair of channel locks to get the darn thign off..

No more hoya..

Your milage may vary.Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

Its an extra optical element between the world and the sensor. So it will most definitely affect image quality. But unless you like to attempt to squeeze the last bit of sharpness out of your lens, I would not worry too much about it (for the money shot of the day you can still screw it off). Also, there is already UV protection on most lenses' coatings and on the camera sensor itself so it's not that you are completely exposed to UV with your sensor without having a screw-on UV filter..

On the other hand, it might make more sense to afford the slight loss in image quality and to use a UV filter which is easier to clean and replace - than to destroy the lens coating over time through heavy cleaning. I personally do use a UV filter on occasions where the lens is likely to get dirty (or in bad weather).O.http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/http://www.flickrleech.net/user/ollivr..

Am I the only one who finds their lenses almost never pick up dirt or fingerprints, whereas the front of any filter I fit immediately attracts enough of both to keep a CSI team busy?.

Why does that happen, especially now I don't wear a tie so often!?.

Peter - on the green island of Ischiahttp://www.pbase.com/isolaverde..

Hhcubed wrote:.

...in fact, if anything, the quality wil be clearer if you get a"multi-coated "UV filter..

Clearer than a non-multi-coated UV filter, certainly, but not clearer than no filter at all..

Most of the time, a UV filter will make no difference at all. However, in extreme lighting conditions, such as night streetscapes or shooting with the sun in or near the frame, any UV filter will cause reflections and "ghosting.".

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..

Petteri Sulonen wrote:.

Hhcubed wrote:.

...in fact, if anything, the quality wil be clearer if you get a"multi-coated "UV filter..

Clearer than a non-multi-coated UV filter, certainly, but notclearer than no filter at all..

Sorry, didn't make clear enoughdifference between MC and non-MC was intended to be noted... I re-read the original question... I orignally assumed that the issue was between the two types of filters... Correction duly noted....

Most of the time, a UV filter will make no difference at all..

For outdoors, it should make a difference, otherwise the filter would not be named "UV", or similarly, it's relative called the "haze" filter....

However, in extreme lighting conditions, such as night streetscapesor shooting with the sun in or near the frame, any UV filter willcause reflections and "ghosting.".

Technically, that is true; and again, I neglected to mention that particular fact as I haven't found that to be an issue when I took my night scenes....

In general, the filter IS a protector, first; and, depending on the filter brand/type (MC/non-MC), it COULD affect the image quality, second....

Hank.

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/.

Hank IIIhttp://www.pbase.com/hhcubed..

Http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7912fallingphotogirlSydney, Australia.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Hhcubed wrote:.

[snip].

For outdoors, it should make a difference, otherwise the filterwould not be named "UV", or similarly, it's relative called the"haze" filter....

But it doesn't. The reason is that normal optical glass is UV-opaque anyway: it won't make any difference. Nikon used to make a lens specifically for UV photography, made out of some highly unusual glass that was transparent to UV; IIRC the lens cost about $4,500..

Try it for kicks. Better, climb a mountain and then try it..

[snip].

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..

My main concern is to protect the lens....

Of course I do not want any major image quality degradation but if it just a tiny bit it would be worth it to protect the lens.Fuji Film S9100 (Arriving Soon)..

Usapatriot wrote:.

My main concern is to protect the lens....

Did you know that Hoya do a clear filter for lens protection in their "Pro Digital" range, at a price, of course?.

Regards, David..

A UV filter will not affect picture quality if the quality of the filter glass and coatings(if any) are equal to or better than the lens they are used on. this would be true for any filter and any lens..

Personally, yrs ago when I got into slr photography I had UV filter on every lens I owned. later I discovered that dirt and/or my fingerprints were not getting on the filter fronts. so I took them all off, they have been off for the last 20yrs. I have not had any problems with dirty lenses...

...better coatings simply mean they cause less flare..

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..

If you have a dSLR I would recommend you buy a glass filter and not anything that will filter out any wavelength. Minimize the amount of waves you filter out. You have RAW, you want as much as possible in your image and post process it the way you want it for that specific shot..

It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value...

Degrades the image. The amount of damage to the IQ from quality optical filters usually is so small as to be irrelevant particularly if change provided by the filter is valuable..

The problem with UV filters, is that they don't do very much besides keep you from touching the front lens element (and sometimes get stuck on the front threads!). So if that function is more valuable than the insignificant IQ damage that accrues, then you should buy one..

Personally, I don't use 'em. But I don't criticize those who do, they know their needs better than me.Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'..

In 35 years of film and digital photography I haven't scratch a lens. A goodly part of that time was using single coated lenses rather than the modern multi-coat lenses which include a very hard anti-scratch coating as the outer coating on the front element...

Petteri Sulonen wrote:.

Hhcubed wrote:.

[snip].

For outdoors, it should make a difference, otherwise the filterwould not be named "UV", or similarly, it's relative called the"haze" filter....

But it doesn't. The reason is that normal optical glass isUV-opaque anyway: it won't make any difference. Nikon used to makea lens specifically for UV photography, made out of some highlyunusual glass that was transparent to UV; IIRC the lens cost about$4,500..

Try it for kicks. Better, climb a mountain and then try it..

Petteri, normal optical glass (you could basically say any glass) does keep off some UV but by far not all of it (same goes for most UV filters). Yet, due to digital sensors (and ordinary contemporary film) not being very sensitive to UV anyways, it's cheaper and more effective to use dedicated UV film/sensor instead of spending 4,500 on a lens! .

O..

[snip].

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/http://www.flickrleech.net/user/ollivr..

But I still use them anyways. I do mostly event photography and the I prefer the extra protection even though I have the hoods on when I shoot..

I use b+w filters and have done some tests and could only see a minimal difference in reduced sharpness and contrast when doing a direct comparison of the shots side by side. If I look at the pictures individually I can't tell which is which. I didn't do a comparison of prints just what I saw on my monitor..

Here are some test shots with a filter that got cracked when someone bumped into me. I normally don't do testing of lens like this so my methodology might be off..

Both shots were taken on 5D 24-70 @ 70mm close to minimum focusing distance F5.6 1/200 ISO 800 on tripod MLU Remote release..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Note these shots were taken with a CRACKED filter. For reference here is a picture of filter on camera and lens.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

I also have some shots at different apertures. If you are a pixel peeper the originals are here.

Http://www.pbase.com/damkader/cracked_uv_filterJayhttp://www.pbase.com/damkaderEquipment in Profile.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

I finally received my camera and mounted a UV filter on it..

Tomorrow I will do some tests and see if there is a difference with the filter on or off.Fuji Film S910058mm UV Filter..

(1) High-altitude landscape on a sunny day.

There's more UV at higher altitudes, so this is the situation where any beneficial effect the filter has would be at it's strongest. I would expect to see at most a very slight difference between the filtered and the unfiltered scene..

(2) Night streetscape with neon signs and streetlights, exposed for the darker areas.

The bright lights and dark overall scene are the worst when it comes to flare spots and ghosting. This scene should be the "worst-case" scenario for a UV filter. I would expect to see noticeably more flare spots and ghosting with the filter than without it..

(3) Regular daylight shot.

This would represent an average situation with no lighting or UV extremes. I would expect to see no effect at all from the filter..

/Petterihttp://www.prime-junta.net/http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/..

Usapatriot wrote:.

I intend to buy a UV lens filter for my camera mainly just toprotect the lens, will it have any negative impact on image quality?Fuji Film S9100 (Arriving Soon).

Image degradation is minimal. Do not worry about it..

Try to match quality of filter to your lens. i.e. if you spend 1000 on a lens, then consider a high quality filter (expensive) from B&W or Hoya...

With a brand new 10-20mmEX lens + UV filter on my Sigma SD10 several years ago, the lens hit a rock at Lake Tahoe, hit on the glass.The UV filter cracked, the lens didn't. Many hundreds $$s saved and much aggravation/disappointment. I've had a UV filter crack too while on a relatively expensive 70-200mmEX lens as well..

Ever since I make a point of using a filter on any lens where the front elements are near the outer edge. I do think the UV filters sometimes help diminish 'haze' for landscape photography, as they're billed to do...Best regards, SandySigma SD10 and SD14http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischmanhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann..

Thanks for the link. The article from mike johnston linked in that thread is also noteworthy:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml.

O.http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/http://www.flickrleech.net/user/ollivr..