Do cheap UV filters reduce image quality when used only for lens protection?
Asked 3/29/2014
5 views
2 answers
0
I want to use a UV filter on a Canon EF 17-40mm lens purely to protect the front element, mainly because using the hood makes the setup bulkier. I see very cheap and more expensive UV filters, but I’m not sure what the real difference is.
If the filter is only for protection, what are the downsides of a cheap UV filter? Can it cause flare, reflections, focusing problems, loss of sharpness, or noticeable light loss? Is a protective UV filter generally worth using, or is it better to leave the lens bare except in harsh conditions?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
8
Cheap is not necessarily cheap - you can get a cheap filter that is good, but if you get one that is bad, the following are side effects that have been reported/observed by other users:
- focussing problems with cheap UV filters
- loss of sharpness in the image
- flares/weird reflections
Add to that, a front lens element is a lot stronger than most people realize it and a lot harder to scratch than most people realize too. Unless you will be shooting in an environment where you need a filter to seal the lens or where you know you will have dirt on your lens (say a beach/desert with sand, a rally event where mud may hit your lens) it is not advisable to use a filter for "protection" unless you desire the effect of the filter.
A broken filter may also scratch your lens - which leads to the question whether they really offer protection (they shatter first but the shards could damage the lens).
If you are worried about the "odd bump", a lens hood is the better option.
Originally by user7736. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user7736
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A cheap UV filter can hurt image quality more than it helps protect the lens. Reported downsides include extra flare, ghosting/reflections, reduced sharpness, and sometimes autofocus issues. Any plain glass added in front of a good lens can introduce artifacts; better filters usually use higher-quality glass and multi-coating to reduce these effects.
Light loss from a UV filter is usually small, but it is still another optical surface in the path.
For normal shooting, many photographers prefer no filter at all and rely on the hood for protection. Front elements are generally tougher and more scratch-resistant than many people assume. A filter is most useful in harsh environments such as blowing sand, mud, salt spray, or situations where cleaning the front often would be risky.
If you do use one for protection, avoid the cheapest options and choose a good multicoated protective/UV filter. Otherwise, the filter itself can become the weak point—and if it breaks, it may even scratch the lens.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Do I need a UV/protective filter if I already use a lens hood?
Do Canon L lenses need a UV filter, or is UV already handled by the lens/camera?
How can I reduce flare from bright stage lights when using a UV protective filter?
Do I need a UV or protective filter on an expensive lens, and is a premium one worth it?
Do I need a UV filter for lens protection, and are some brands better than others?