To Use or Not To Use UV filter on Pro Lens ?

AAC

Is it a contradict to put up a UV filter on pro lens ?  I chatted with a pro if I need a UV filter to protect my new Nikon 24-70 but he disagreed.  He said any filter will reduce the IQ of a pro lens.  Well, he is a pro that doesn't care much about his gears but the photo quality to please his customers.  I, as a serious hobbyist not shooting for living, spending $1800 for a new lens, definitely don't want to abuse it.  Just wondering how a UV filter will affect the picture quality, should I go for high quality filter or go no filter ?

lo_pak

回復 1# AAC

Use the highest rating ones, b+w or heliopan.

BiscottiGelato

i don't use other than on my small white. Both cuz of price of lens, and the fact that i very rarely would put on any other filter on that one.

the other lenses I might put CPL once in a while, so it's a total hassle if I put a UV on it. My primary lens protection is lens hood

快樂牛郎

First of all, you should define what you mean by IQ, but I assume most people use it to mean sharpness. Technically, you can argue that the UV filter probably reduces sharpness by 1% or 2%, but no one in the world fuxking cares about that 1%, even if they can really tell. Even if you are a pro, your stupid customers would never be able to tell if you used a UV or not. That's just his/her excuse to replace/upgrade the lens every once a while.

I personally don't care much about sharpness, so I stack all kinds of filters on my lenses. I bought my lenses for their IQ, but not necessarily sharpness, even though some of them happen to be the sharpest lenses ever made.

FiChai

Manufacturer made the sharpest lens in the world, doesn't mean the one using it won't have any camera shake or know how to use correct camera setting.
99.99% of your client and 99.9% of any average professional won't be able to identify which photo is taken with a UV or without, after photo editing applied.
And probably even more than 90% of your client can't tell if you use a cheap lens or pro lens.
Until you made a big scratch on your lens front (because there isn't any filter on), then everyone knows! But yes, if you're rich enough to replace the whole lens every time you have a scratch, why bother to have any protective filter? LOL

快樂牛郎

And one last thing, there had never been a single photo that was rejected by anyone just because the UV filter was on.

mcjohnjohn

if you're rich enough to replace the whole lens every time you have a scratch, why bother to have any protective filter?

I strongly agree with this!!!

chobit

I put UV filter on all my lenses.  Used to be Hoya HMC or better, and now using B+W MRC (forgot the name).
I totally agree with Happy_Cow about the potential sharpness/IQ loss is nearly 0.

By the time you have are ready to clean the dust, sand or salt on your lens, you will feel so much better cleaning it off your UV filter then the front element of you lens.

That's says, I don't recommend using cheap non-coated glass filter.

Look4chrisng

Some people have to put their lens in camera bag without the cap.  With UV filters, you are less guilty if your lens is $1800. Got it?

AAC

Thanks, go get a B+W now.....Those lenses rent from Beau, didn't come with filter... why ?