Do I need a UV or protective filter on an expensive lens, and is a premium one worth it?
Asked 6/9/2024
2 views
2 answers
0
I’ve moved to full-frame mirrorless and want to protect a higher-end lens. In the past I used inexpensive UV filters on kit lenses, but I’m concerned about reducing image quality on better glass. I’m also not sure what the practical difference is between a basic UV/protective filter and a much more expensive one. I won’t usually be shooting in harsh conditions like waterfalls, blowing sand, or salt spray. Is a UV or clear protective filter worth using in normal shooting, and if so, is it worth paying extra for a premium filter?
Originally by physicsboy. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
physicsboy
2y ago
2 Answers
2
There's no need for UV protection, so you could also use a clear protective filter instead. But you don't always get what you pay for...
In testing a $70 Nikon filter was essentially as good as a $225 Leica filter (0.1% difference). And a $10 Chiarro filter was as good as a $40 Tiffen. Based on those tests I replaced my Heliopan protective filter with the Nikon NC.
However, I personally do not use a protective filter unless something is likely to hit the front element... i.e. blowing saltwater, sand, etc. I have not had a lens scratched/scuffed due to not using one in over 20 yrs since I switched to digital (I did use UV filters with film). And I am hard on my gear; I have gear insurance because I use it... Last March I had a Z9 lens mount, viewfinder, and front/rear cases replaced due to impact damage. The lens was fine other than a scar to the hood, and the lens hood hit first.
Still, other than the testing linked to above, most evidence of the benefits/negatives to using a protective filter is anecdotal. However, there is more evidence of a bad filter definitively adversely affecting images in certain situations... but not much correlation as to what to avoid in particular (other than very cheap).
So, if you choose to use one, about the only thing you can do is try it and see... or buy one of the ones that tested highly.
Originally by Steven Kersting. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Steven Kersting
2y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For digital cameras, UV filtration itself generally isn’t needed, so if you want front-element protection a clear protective filter is usually the more relevant option.
Based on the answers, the main takeaway is: if you’re not regularly shooting in harsh conditions, many photographers skip protective filters entirely and rely on the lens hood. A hood helps against bumps and also avoids putting extra glass in front of the lens.
Protective filters are most useful when you expect spray, sand, salt, grease, paint, or similar contamination that could damage or be hard to clean off the front element. In those situations, the filter is more of a disposable barrier.
As for price, expensive filters are not automatically much better. Real-world comparisons can show only tiny differences between some mid-priced and premium filters, and some cheap filters perform similarly to more expensive ones. So cost alone isn’t a reliable guide.
One caution: in a blunt impact, a filter can shatter and potentially scratch the front element, whereas the bare lens plus hood might have survived better.
So for normal use: no filter is a reasonable choice. For harsh environments: use a decent clear/protective filter, but you don’t necessarily need the most expensive one.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI2y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Do cheap UV filters reduce image quality when used only for lens protection?
Do cheap UV filters noticeably reduce image quality, even on inexpensive lenses?
Do protective/UV filters stop dust or water from getting inside a prime lens?
How can I protect a Nikon D7100 and lenses from salt spray, sand, and humidity on a coastal trip?
Do UV filters still have a purpose on modern cameras beyond front-element protection?