Sometimes, when adverse conditions call for it. Blowing sand, sea mist.

Lens hoods actually improve IQ, while even the best UV filter is going to, at a minimum, induce flare. What’s your recommendation for the kit lenses? Cheap filter? You’ll degrade already questionable IQ. Expensive? You’re paying enough to replace the lens.

1. Most of the “broken filter saved my lens” stories are misleading; the UV filter breaks because it is directly mounted on the filter ring, which bears the brunt of the blunt trauma when a camera falls. Actual front lens elements are usually mounted and secured in a completely different way and are much less susceptible to damage.

2. Uncoated filters are cheap and can cause extra flare or loss of contrast. Why are you paying for a multicoated lens and putting a cheap uncoated filter on it? If you spring for the $50-100 multicoated filters and you have 4 or 5 lenses, you have basically just spent $250-500 on filters. You could have purchased an extra lens for that coin.

3. On professional video and film productions, where the lenses can cost thousands to tens-of-thousands of dollars, you will not see “protective” UV filters anywhere. Why do you think that is? (When I ran a equipment facility for a film production company, the only filters we stocked were polarizers and color-correction filters.)

4. It’s quite possible for a broken filter to damage the front lens element if the glass is pushed inward with any force.

5. I used to sell camera gear. The cost-of-goods on a filter is ridiculously low compared to its list price. We frequently made more money on selling the filters than we made on selling the cameras. At the time I used all the arguments elsewhere in this story to separate consumers from their money.

6. Most modern digital cameras already have UV filters for the sensor.

I don’t use UV filters except if I am in a particularly camera-hostile environment, like blowing debris or sand.

Jim Patterson
Phoenix, Arizona

Regarding your article on UV (haze) filters; I’m aware of the attributes you mention, but I’m wondering about one factor. In filtering out the UV rays, which are at the blue end of the spectrum, wouldn’t that tend to bias the color of your images toward the warmer end? And what about flash? I’ve noticed skin tones to be warmer than natural when I left the UV filter on. Removing it seemed to eliminate that effect. Your comments would be appreciated. G.K.

George: UV filters cut ‘haze’ by filtering out UV light alone. Human eyes are not sensitive to UV radiation by itself (this is why we call it invisible radiation, just like Infra-Red radiation), but film and some sensors are…

I suspect that what you’re seeing is because of a low quality UV filter (or maybe you’re using a sky-light filter, which also cuts haze), because while UV filters are a very very pale yellow, it should not make any difference in your photographs.

Your point about testing is very true… Photography is all about testing what works for your technique. Some like the flare; some dont. Some like image degradation, grain, spots on film, dust and others like their images to be almost true representations of the actual scene.

To each his own…

Everyone else, what do you think?

As for the degradation by two different surfaces? Probably none at all if you REALLY look at the shots side by side. Would certainly be something to test for those on the fence about it. In addition to quality concerns, there is also a greater risk of flare by adding a filter, but really, how often are you on that fine line between flaring and not when you think ‘Wow, I wish I didn’t have this filter on my lens’. Probably close to never.