UV protector

My camera kit came with 2 Tiffen brand UV protector/filters. I am sure they are the cheapies coming with the kit. Should I use these or not. I am sure it would be more for protection then anything. I am planning on getting lens hoods for my two lenses and figure they will do me more good then these. What do you think?

Lens hoods are good. They provide lens protection, improve the contrast of your images, and reduce problems with lens flare.

UV filters when they shatter become shards that can gouge your lens objective. The extra air gap promotes lens flare, they don't add to image contrast and if you prang the filter threading ring with a UV attached it can make removing the UV filter from your lens very difficult.

Your best bet is to try them out in different lighting conditions. Harsh sunlight is probably the best test for loosing image quality, introducing flare, ghosting, etc.

So I should just throw out the UV filters and buy a lens hood.

Should I/shouldn't I use a filter is a whole bag of worms, some say there great, others useless. Personally I never use a UV filter and prefer hoods. The only time I would consider using a UV filter would be if I was shooting a subject where there was a chance of debris flying up and dmamaging the lens.

TheNissanMan wrote: Should I/shouldn't I use a filter is a whole bag of worms, some say there great, others useless. Personally I never use a UV filter and prefer hoods. The only time I would consider using a UV filter would be if I was shooting a subject where there was a chance of debris flying up and dmamaging the lens.

This pretty much covers it.



Here's how I see protection filters.

1. They're not drop protection. Neither is a hood. A hood however has a better chance of stopping the FRONT of your lens getting damaged in a drop (IF it drops "head first"). A hood also offers bump protection. Which is more important to me (event photography).

2. They can help the seal of the lens. Some lenses need a filter to completely seal the leans (Canon 16-35 for example). So if you work/play in the rain or in a humid environment, then using one is a good idea.

3. A good one won't do any perceivable damage to your photos. 99% of the time having a high quality UV filter on the front of your lens isn't going to make your pictures suddenly suck. Of course not having a HOOD on the front will make your lens flare a lot more.

4. People will argue both ways and it will never end. I've heard all the arguments on both sides many time, fact is there's a place for UV protection and a place not to use them.

Personally I sometimes use them sometimes don't. My 50 1.4 doesn't have one on, and the 24-70 doesn't either. My 70-200 does have one on (and it give me the sharpest, most flare resistant images of all my lenses) and my XF300 (Video camera) has one on (for moisture sealing). I also use a hood on all my lenses.

If you do think you need one (dust/dirt/kids-fingers/dog-nose/salt-spray protection or for moisture sealing) then use the best one you can. If you don't think you need it for those things, then you don't need to bother. It's really up to you. The front element of the lens is pretty tough and can be replaced if really necessary.

Note: As said above, in a drop, a filter may shatter doing more damage to your lens, so if you're just using it for drop protection, then it's stupid and the advice to get a hood is a valid one.