Jul 30 2010

Video Photo Tip ~ UV or Not To UV

Video Photo Tip ~ UV or Not To UV

Here’s the debate-to place a UV filter over the end of your lens and leave it there, or not. As I mentioned in the video, I can’t justify placing a cheap piece of glass over the expensive optical glass of the lens. Will the UV filter protect the lens, yes, but my hood does a better job making a barrier from any front end contact.

How about UV light filtering? I’ve almost never seen a situation where this was needed, or that the filter improved the scene that much. Removing haze is a quick fix in Photoshop using levels. I suppose, if I have the UV filter, I could put it on for a shot or two, if it removed the haze, but I wouldn’t leave it permanently at the end of my lens.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours? Please leave a comment and share with us if you UV or not.

Photo Tip ~ If you have a photo tip or would like to have a photo question answered, send me an email. Be sure to subscribe for free to this blog to receive ongoing great photo tips and inspiration! If this was helpful, please leave a comment.

by Kent Weakley

show hide 8 comments

link to this post

email a friend

TJ McDowellAugust 3 - 4:35 pm

I see your reasoning here. On our really expensive lenses, we use these, but I’m wondering if a hood alone might be a better option now that you mention it. Have you seen a significant difference in image quality with a uv filter? Our images usually turn out sharp even with the filter on.

darcy @ m3bAugust 17 - 2:29 am

I’m firmly in Camp No Filter for the reasons you mentioned.

Richard DavisAugust 21 - 12:11 pm

I’m in the no-UV filter camp. I fully agree that it doesn’t make sense to put a cheap piece of glass in front of an expensive piece of glass and I’ve never noticed any improvement with the filter attached.

I do use them in the desert and high dust areas where there is a higher probability of debris flying toward the lens or excessive dust requiring a lot of lens cleaning but I don’t see the point for most uses.

Amy ChamAugust 22 - 3:40 pm

I’m a UV-er. In shooting weddings there is too much running, camera swinging and fast lens swapping, not to mention bizarre summer weather surprises like sudden rain when it’s blazing sun–when that happens I can’t pause to protect my gear, I gotta get what I can before (or while) everyone runs for cover.

I just can’t risk the lens surface, too many opportunities for damage.

Nikhil RamkarranAugust 26 - 6:28 pm

When I first started using a DSLR I was firmly in the “protective” filter camp, particularly as the expenditure had been significant. But I realised after a while that I didn’t buy the equipment to re-sell and even with significant damage to the front element of a lens it can still be use. When I realised that I stopped using the filter. Like many other, I leave the hood on the front of the lens and rarely use even the lens cap.

Nerys OsbournMarch 25 - 8:06 am

I still use a UV filter to protect the lens when in the bag or in dusty environments. Canon lens caps are not the most secure. However, I was recently told that one reason for so many sun flares in my shots, even with a hood, was probably the filter. Since then I’ve removed the filter when shooting and … [small drum roll] … no more flares.

It makes no sense to cover expensive lens glass with a cheap piece of flat glass. So I’m now firmly in the “no UV filter” camp.

Kent Weakley Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 8:23 am

Thanks for your comment. I especially liked the “small drum roll”!

Relz LifeMarch 26 - 6:10 am

My buddy dropped his lens, the UV filter was cracked, but the lens was perfect!!!! for that reason, i’ll use a UV filter. Yes the lens hood does protect it too… but a lens hood cannot protect it 100%. Sure a Canon 70-200 has a long hood, but wide angle lens have short hoods. Suppose you have your strap over your shoulder, you got a short lens hood on, and you bump something sharp or pointy??? The lens hood isn’t always gonna protect your lens.