I know that I should always use a filter on my lens to protect the camera lens, however, exactly what impact to the picture does using a UV filter have — since that is the one most often used? I seem to recall that this only affects black-and-white photography; is this correct? Does the need for UV filter go away when you are not using film in your camera but a digital sensor? Does the quality of the UV filter have a visible impact on your photos?

  • \$\begingroup\$ check this: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/57/… \$\endgroup\$
    – asalamon74
    Commented Dec 5, 2010 at 7:58
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ How do you know you should "...always use a filter on my lens to protect the camera lens..."? There are a significant number of experienced photographers, ranging from hobbyists to some of the best pros in the world, that would differ. Some quite strongly, in fact. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Apr 14, 2015 at 0:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ See also Is a UV Filter required/recommended for lens protection? \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Apr 14, 2015 at 0:13

2 Answers 2


A UV filter cuts out the ultra-violet part of the spectrum (which is almost all filtered out by regular glass any way). Digital camera sensors as well as film are sensitive to near visible UV light which shows up as purple in photographs. This isn't usually a problem as the amount of UV light in most cases is minimal. It can however be a big problem under certain conditions if you're very far north, resulting in a strong purple cast to images that is hard to remedy in post.

Digital sensors actually have their own UV filter which is usually sufficient, however there have been cases where filter wasn't strong enough, the most famous being the Leica M8, which resulted in Leica having to ship free UV filters to customers.

Leica M8 without UV filter
Leica M8 without UV filter

Leica M8 with UV filter
Leica M8 with UV filter

Images copyright DPreview, see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page15.asp

So it affects both colour and black and white photography, in fact it's more noticeable in colour. A UV filter will also slightly darken skies by filtering out some of the UV from the upper atmosphere, which is generally desirable in landscape photography.

The quality of a UV filter affects images not in the ability to filter UV light but in the ability to resist flare. Cheap non multi-coated UV filters can introduce a lot of lens flare and reduce the contrast in images.

Finally I dispute the fact that you should always use a UV filter to protect a lens. A good quality UV filter can cost about the same as having the front element of a lens replaced should it ever get badly damaged! And putting a cheap filter on an expensive lens makes no sense at all. Small scratches on a lens are inconsequential to image quality, as shown in this lensrentals.com blog article about front element scratches.

In my opinion the best way to protect your lenses is with a proper photographers insurance policy.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Just a note on insurance: I was told that by my insurance agent that this is unlikely to be an option unless you are a pro or have over $10,000 of gear to protect. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 5, 2010 at 13:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ +1 for mentioning the "protective" myth that camera stores are feeding everyone. I'm guessing that they're doing this because nobody wants to buy the store warranty any more... \$\endgroup\$
    – Joanne C
    Commented Dec 5, 2010 at 15:18
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @mattdm it probably depends what country you are in, where I live in the UK there are companies that will insure anything from a single camera/lens up to a full assortment of gear. You can also sometimes add it to your house contents insurance which will cover it for use outside the house. \$\endgroup\$
    – Matt Grum
    Commented Dec 5, 2010 at 15:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ True. I'm in the US. Here, at least, with the way homeowners'/renters' insurance works, putting high-risk items in with that can be a problem because each claim you make can make your future rates go up. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Commented Dec 5, 2010 at 15:43
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Note that in the test image, the purple is caused by IR, not UV, according to the article. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 16, 2016 at 8:08

For my new Sony a6000 camera, I haven't seen any gain off of using a cheap UV filter. However, when I rent lens, they often come with a UV filter on them. They seem to make the image blurrier (I had Bower ones.). More expensive ones seem to have a less blur.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Anyone want to enlighten on WHY I got a -1? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 3, 2015 at 0:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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