Before the rush

Before the rush
by evan-pak

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm usually very good at getting water/finger marks on lens, so I must use something for protection. Is there any downside of using an UV filter instead of a protector filter?

Example: Hoya HD Protector or Hoya HD UV?

share|improve this question
Related question:… – Guffa Jul 25 '10 at 9:23
up vote 11 down vote accepted

First, I wouldn't be especially worried about the odd fingerprint, dust mark, or water on the lens as it would take quite a bit to make an impact. To give you a sense, helpfully posted in another thread is this lens which, despite massive damage to front element, still works and does so reasonably well.

Second, there are ways to reduce your incidental contact with the lens such as using the lens hood and ensuring you cap it when its not in use. If you do get something on it, despite that, then cleaning tools such as the lens pen and microfibre cloths will help you remove it. That's if you even notice!

However, if you do get something like a UV filter, which will help with this problem, bear in mind that you still have to clean that with reasonable care or you introduce potential image artifacts beyond what the filter will already do. By the way, the downside really applies to both options in a way, primarily artifacts from light sources appearing in unexpected places. It is, after all, another piece of glass added to your lens.

share|improve this answer
I saw that page a while ago and was impressed by the lack of artefacts on the images. – ChrisF Jul 25 '10 at 21:51
Great link - Thanks! – Roddy Aug 4 '10 at 9:40
I find that a UV filter is excellent insurance against drops. If you drop and don't have a filter - the threads and front of the lens is likely to get bent and mangled - making it so you can't attach a filter to the front anymore. I've had this happen, it's no fun. My dad had a UV filter on his 10-24, and it took a hit in his backpack, destroying the filter but the lens was completely unharmed. Without the filter, the front element and filter threads would have been greatly damaged. – camflan Sep 8 '12 at 14:05
@camflan, I'll take my chances. The filter can impede image quality in a variety of ways, so I'm not a fan and won't normally recommend it. As an aside, even with the filter on you can end up damaged, leaving the filter stuck, bent, and still unable to attach another. There is no assurances here... – John Cavan Sep 9 '12 at 0:14

The only advantage of an additional protection element (UV or protector) is that it is cheaper to replace should you scratch it when you rub it with your t-shirt/accidentally drag dirt over it. And for that purpose they do admirably. Having said that small specks of dust and dirt rarely have a significant impact although water drops can.

But if you're going to add another layer of glass then it's probably best to make sure it’s as good a quality piece as you can get, commensurate with the quality of the lenses it goes onto.

So the best quality one for the price will be the better option.

share|improve this answer
If you follow the link above to the LensRental, the author points out the replacing the front element of a lens is the least expensive repair to the lens. As others have said, you must use a great filter which are expensive. This makes the economic argument much weaker, as you need a good filter to protect against rare and inexpensive repairs. – Pat Farrell Sep 9 '12 at 15:29

I tend to have a polariser strapped to the front of my lens whenever shooting outside (which is, of course, the third option).

Given that digital cameras are less sensitive to UV light than film is, then the choice is moot.

Personally, I'd tend to opt for the UV filter option, when I'm not using a polariser; as I'd still be able to use it with my film cameras.

share|improve this answer
If you take this route, be aware that the polarizer will lose you 1.5-2 stops of light. – Reid Jul 25 '10 at 15:20
and a low quality polariser will throw off the colors a bit. – Dave Van den Eynde Jul 26 '10 at 6:27

It's an ongoing debate in the photography world and blogosphere whether having a UV filter is a good or a bad thing (whether it reduces the quality if images). Assuming you want one, do like spg said and get a good quality filter. Putting cheap plastic in front of (quality) lens elements doesn't make much sense as it essentially can reduce the image quality of the lens, causing lens flare etc.

I personally tend to use a UV filter or a lens hood to protect the lenses. I've got a Hoya Pro 1 Digital series UV filter and some B+W filter and I haven't had any issues with either one.

Also notice that if you've got a wide-angle lens, you may need a slim-line filter to avoid vignetting.

share|improve this answer
I don't want to start a crusade here, but I have a different perspective. I had always used a UV filter ( Hoya in this instance ) and been happy with the protection it provided. However, one day, while photographing flowers, I came upon a spectacular vibrant purple flower. Every attempt to photograph the flower didn't work, no matter what I did, the flower would be blue. After some research, I discovered that UV filters can cause this sort of color tinting effect. I went back later with a Nikon NC filter as a protector, and the flower photographed correctly. – Therealstubot Aug 10 '12 at 0:26

It just occurred to me that anyone of us could make a simple cover for the lens using a plastic bottle of the right diameter.

I've been spending 'hours' looking for the right protection. My new cameras now has a step up (adapter) so to avoid vignetting.

I think I'll get a plastic bottle. Cut the top off and slip it over the lens. Add a piece of parachute cord that was $5 for 100' at Amazon and I've got a no lose free protector. If the bottle's a bit too tight a slit along its length of the right length or 'angle' (maybe slice it like a circular ham slice) Anyway that would allow it to spread if you're off by 0.1"

I was so 'groomed' to buy something instead of doing what I would have done when I was 8 years old...

share|improve this answer
+1 It's a good idea for protection. However, I need the filter while I'm actually taking pictures. – alexandrul Jan 30 '12 at 6:37

Generally, digital sensors are far, far less sensitive to UV light than film, because of this you probably wont notice much, if any, difference between using a UV or clear protector. Personally I prefer to use a clear protector, 1 - because I don't use film any more so don't feel I need to keep one around and 2 - even though I know the UV filtering probably makes no difference, it's nice to know my lens has an uninterrupted view of the world.

Whichever one you choose make sure you get the highest possible quality filter you can afford. I use the Hoya HDs but if your budget is a little tighter the Hoya Digital filters are also very good. Don't even think about the cheap eBay filters - I had some and they ruined every shot I took, I was surprised quite how bad they were.

share|improve this answer

Some digital cameras have a built-in UV filter, so using UV on them is the same as using a protector.

share|improve this answer
Only some digital cameras have an UV filter, most only have an IR filter. – Guffa Jul 25 '10 at 9:15
Well, you can get Fujifilm IS Pro, which is advertised to be sensitive to UV light: – che Jul 25 '10 at 22:32

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.