UV or not UV?

Simple question:- Does a UV filter compromise the clarity of your photography?

Do you always have a UV filter on?

I know what I think just interested in what you guys think.

I have a UV filter on one lens (it only fits on one) all the time - if only to protect the front of the lens.

Have you taken a pic with it off and then on?

If so did you notice any difference?

I used em- again only to protect lens.

No difference.

I've never tried it as an experiment but the idea is that UV rays are absorbed so pictures 'may' be sharper and have less haze.

Just make sure you get a good quality one!!

I too used them simply to protect my lens.

An AV lens filter is bound to compromise some pictures, it just depends on the daylight at the time of taking a picture and what of. Now a skylight filter is just plain glass and should have no affect on the picture.

It is alway wise to have some kind of filter on a lens just to safeguard the lens itself.

Bazza

I have used UV filters before, just to protect the front element of my lenses.

I use the Hoya Super HMC Pro1 UV filter, this provides 99.7% light transmission, not really going to miss 0.03%

A lot of the more expensive lenses will have coatings on them anyway.

There is not a lot of UV light around either, especially at sea level. If you go a few thousand feet in the air, up a mountain or in an aeroplane then the level of UV goes up, so without a UV filter you might notice a blue 'cast' on your images. And of course, if you are indoors, then there will be practically no UV light. (unless you have a UV bulb)

If you have a decent filter (not a £10 cheap-ola) then you will not notice any difference with the filter on or off, unless you happen to be in an area with loads of UV light (unlikely).

Alan.

Any extra glass between the film/sensor and the outside world will have a detrimental effect. Whether that effect is enough to be obvious is the question. In my opinion if you feel safer with a filter on the end of your lens, then go for it.

Personally I don't, but many years ago I used to. My decision has been made by the fact that I spend as much money as I can on my lens and I prefer not to put an extra piece of glass in the light path that the lens was not designed for. I doubt very much if I could tell the difference in 99% of the images taken with or without.

By the way, I think the Sky light filter is actually pink/straw coloured and does add a degree of warmth to an image.

Steve

I researched this a bit when I was buying my new kit. There are two schools of thought: (1) anything you put between the lens and the subject will inevitably compromise the lens' performance to some degree, vs (2) any image degradation is minimal with a good quality multi-coated filter and an acceptable trade-off given the alternative of cumulative damage to the lens front element caused by even the gentlest cleaning over time.

FWIW I bought UV filters the same time I bought my lenses and fitted them before first use. Turns out it was a particularly good move for my more expensive 17-55mm zoom because a design/construction flaw has left that model vulnerable to dust (poor seal on the front element) unless a filter is fitted.

If you do the same, just remember to go low profile if you're protecting a wide angle lens!