When I first took up photography in about 1980, somebody told me I should always put a UV filter on a new lens and keep it there so I used UV filters on all my lenses for about 20 years until I realised, thanks to the advent of digital photography and virtually instant photo analysis, that they were actually ruining a lot of my photos.

A speck of dust on a lens will probably not be visible in a photo but if it is on a filter, even if it is just a few millimetres away from the lens, it will be slightly more in focus and therefore more visible. I noticed that cleaning a filter with a lens cloth can create static which attracts dust whereas, for some reason, cleaning a lens did not.

There is the risk of vignetting, especially on DSLRs where only about 95% of the image is visible in the viewfinder and the need for UV filtering with digital is extremely dubious.

I understand the desire to protect valuable glass but the glass used in lenses is pretty tough and I have seen videos of people testing lenses to destruction to a) see what it took to do any damage to the glass and b) what affect any damage would cause. There were lenses with damage which was inflicted with a grinder which barely impacted on the photo quality but when similar damage was done to a filter, it was all too visible in the photos. The lens having a curved surface vs the flatness of the filter is also a factor.

One other point which may be worth considering is that by keeping a filter fitted, it may help to trap moisture inside the lens which may lead to fungal growth within the lens.

i bought this for 17-55 f2.8 to avoid cleaning the front element of my lens :stuck_out_tongue:

Cheap, so heat added. However, I really don't see the point in UV Filters.

Cheap, so heat added. However, I really don't see the point in UV Filters.

Lens cloth for cleaning, though I use a rocket blower, and I've never managed to scratch a lens yet. Plus, surely the extra glass is detrimental to image quality? Not dissing anyone for using them, each to their own, I just fail to see the point.

Hmm....I always sense the faint whiff of snake-oil when 'pro' or 'hd' are attached to lens filters. With lenses frequently being composed of a dozen or more elements I just can't see a noticeable difference between a regular Hoya filter or or some superduper, dare I say it, 'digital' filter. Other than price.
Perhaps there is more than a little psychology of marketing involved: when you have just spent a grand or more on a lens who wants to cheap out on the filter.

Reviews state that the some filters have better coatings. Its certainly possible that this is overstated; I haven't compared shots between filters but my gut feel is flare could be much more of an issue for example on cheap filters.

In the end I don't mind paying a bit extra for a 'better' filter but would draw the line at the cost of some.....

When I first took up photography in about 1980, somebody told me I should always put a UV filter on a new lens and keep it there so I used UV filters on all my lenses for about 20 years until I realised, thanks to the advent of digital photography and virtually instant photo analysis, that they were actually ruining a lot of my photos.

A speck of dust on a lens will probably not be visible in a photo but if it is on a filter, even if it is just a few millimetres away from the lens, it will be slightly more in focus and therefore more visible. I noticed that cleaning a filter with a lens cloth can create static which attracts dust whereas, for some reason, cleaning a lens did not.

There is the risk of vignetting, especially on DSLRs where only about 95% of the image is visible in the viewfinder and the need for UV filtering with digital is extremely dubious.

I understand the desire to protect valuable glass but the glass used in lenses is pretty tough and I have seen videos of people testing lenses to destruction to a) see what it took to do any damage to the glass and b) what affect any damage would cause. There were lenses with damage which was inflicted with a grinder which barely impacted on the photo quality but when similar damage was done to a filter, it was all too visible in the photos. The lens having a curved surface vs the flatness of the filter is also a factor.

One other point which may be worth considering is that by keeping a filter fitted, it may help to trap moisture inside the lens which may lead to fungal growth within the lens.

UV filters have zero UV benefits on a digital camera. However what people forget every time this debate comes up is that scratching the actually front element while cleaning is very hard. What isn't difficult is to scratch is the coatings you find on lenses. These will thin and finally wear off if not careful.
Also if you have weatherproof pro lenses. A filter on the front element also helps protect when used in windy weather say down the beach.
At the end of the day it's a personal preference. If you're going to apply a filter do so, if not don't. Though try and buy a quality equal to your lens.
I use Hoya HD filters as the coatings make them far easier to clean than the Pro-1 or Digital line.

nikon 17-55 one expensive lens. wouldnt want any scratch there.

Just a point people fit these as protectors for the front elements.. trust me if you drop your lens with a filter on, be prepared for the thread to become stripped and a shattered filter may cause small pieces of glass to scratch the front element of your lens..

Use lens caps to protect do not use filters to protect.

As for filters. Id found uses for ND Filters and Polarizing Filters even maybe graduated filters, but never for a UV Filter.