Topic: UV Filters, Are they still necessary?

[Greys on Grey]

Was wondering what the group think is concerning the use of a UV filter with current film stock.  Are they still necessary or a hold over from a time gone by?  (Protection of the front element is not a factor here.)

[sapata]

Protection of the front element is the only reason I have ALWAYS been using UV filters. I never actually found any diference in my pictures and to be honest I don't even know in the first place what they're made for...

[moominsean]

Older films could have haze from UV light, so the filter blocked the wavelength. I don't think there is any current use for them other than for protection of the lens.

[Late Developer]

Without wishing to straddle the fence deliberately, I'd say it depends.

If you have older, single coat or uncoated lenses which don't filter out UV, for that purpose, they are still valid. However, as the rest have said, they do stop a lot of dust and muck damaging the front element - and are a lot cheaper to replace than a decent lens.

[Francois]

Like said, the only time where you really don't want a UV filter on is when shooting UV rays (fluorescence photography)... The rest of the time, they're basically a permanent "lens cap"

I remember an article in Leica International where they were asking if a Leica lens should have a filter or not. When reaching extreme magnification of the negative, there is a difference... but it's so slight I wouldn't even consider it in my picture taking (it's like saying that with one setup, you can count more of the bricks in a building that's half a mile away when shot using a 50mm tripod mounted camera using 25 ISO film processed in super fine grain developer...).

[sapata]

"the only time where you really don't want a UV filter on is when shooting UV rays"

I'd say also say if you drop the lens on the floor... and the metal part of the filter get damaged,  you will never be able to unscrew the filter.

[Pete_R]

The question suggests that current films are different to films of the past (spectrally speaking). I'm sure they must be in some ways but whether it's true in the UV region, I don't know.

A quick look at some spectral responses of Kodak films shows pretty steep cut off below 400nm for colour films but not so for black and white films. So, the filters probably have minimal effect, if any, with colour films but are probably still relevant for black and white.

[Francois]

I'd say also say if you drop the lens on the floor... if damage the metal part of the filter you will never be able to unscrew.

All depending on the amount of damage to it. My last used camera had a lens with no frontal filter screw... probably gone with the filter. But usually, it's not quite as bad.

[Alan]

I always have a UV filter on my lenses when there isnt a CPL or other filter
on. I would rather rub dust and crap off a filter than off a lens.

I would wonder if there is any difference between using one or not?

[Greys on Grey]

Lots of good answers, thanks everyone.  I agree fully that wisdom has held that a UV should be used to protect the lens.  But you also were sticking an additional piece of glass between you and the subject.  I believe I am going to become more disciplined with my use of a lens cap and forgo the front window.