I tend to always put UV filters perminently on each lens I own, and although it has saves my lenses on the occassion that I`ve had an accident and it does of course do what it says on the box, i`ve often wondered how much quality I lose by shooting through one. I know some photographers wont use them.
I'm in the don't use them camp! You don't lose any quality if they're really good (think Hoya Pro, edging towards the £100 mark) but I've seen UV filters that lose you an entire stop or more. Easiest way to assess a filter is by putting it on a white piece of paper and seeing if there's any difference when you look through it. Sometimes, they're brown or yellow. Alternatively, mount your camera on a tripod, put it onto program mode, and see how much the exposure changes when you wave the filter over the lens...
I know that many will disagree but UV filters come from old film days where they served a positive benefit on final image quality (because of the film) and when lens coatings were far more fragile than they are now. Makes less sense now - but, if you like them, who am I to tell you how to spend your money?
Skylight and UV filters are sold as much on insurance as image quality these days. The idea is to prevent you from damaging your expensive lens by having a cheaper 'sacrificial' filter on the front. Trouble is, you may prevent your front element from getting scratched at the expense of your image quality.
No matter how well coated a piece of glass is, it's still a piece of glass. That means an extra optic between you and the image, and that means potential for flare, colour shifts and all sorts of potential nasties to undermine the contrast of your images. I haven't seen any UV filters to suck that much light (I think most are about 1/8th - 1/3rd of a stop), but you should be aware of the UV filter's potential to eat light, too.
I'm not wholly sure the UV filter's best work was in the past though. Digital sensors are often more UV sensitive than filmstock - not every camera needs a hot mirror filter, but a UV can help cut some of the strange sensitivities of sensors.
When I used to assist in a studio and location work meant carefully controlled environments, I would only use a filter when the filter was specifically called for - as a colour correction device, a neutral density light-reducing device or as a particular effect. Now much of my work means working shows and events, my equipment gets knocked around more and I tend to stick a UV filter on the front, just in case. I'm willing to take any potential image quality hit, because that is offset by the fact that I'm not sitting in the middle of a conference centre wondering how that inch-long scratch on the front element will mess up the rest of the week's photos.
I suspect the lens hood takes more punishment than the filter, but I do tend to wear the things out in a surprisingly short time. Which means if it weren't for the lens hood and the filter, I'd probably be going through lenses quicker.
with modern technology you`d think they`d invent something that removed the filter just as you press the shutter release and replaces it after the photgrasph is taken
I got a big splodge of dirty water on my wide angle lens the other day. I was only about 12 inches from where a pike splashed, sending mud all over the camera.
I cleaned the lens by washing the front element under the tap and then applying optic cleaning fluid, together with non-abrasive wipes.
The lens is fine again.
And I don't fancy putting UV filters on lenses any more, they certainly affect the picture quality. If I want to get more dramatic skies, there is always Photoshop.
"And I don't fancy putting UV filters on lenses any more, they certainly affect the picture quality."
Well, running the lens under a tap is going to go down great guns. If I were you, Ron, I'd have scrubbed the whole lot, camera and lens, in a mild mix of Fairy Liquid, bleach, and Listerene, just to be on the safe side.
