Skip to main content

Should I use a UV Filter?

Yes, I’m going to go there…

In my opinion UV filters are a camera stores best revenue earner, for every lens or camera package they sell there is a better than even chance they can sell the purchaser a UV filter, or 2.

But are they worth it?

Here are a few of the Pros and Cons:

Pros:

  • It may protect the lens from damage if dropped.
  • It may protect the lens for dirt, dust and other marks.
  • It filters out UV light.

Cons:

  • If it breaks the glass shards may damage my front element, or coating, or the ring could get jammed on my lens.
  • It’s another layer of glass, and it may introduce flares and other artifacts into the image.

Well if you use a digital camera you can rule out the UV filtering being a benefit because digital sensors already have a UV filter. The filter has just as much chance of causing damage to a lens than protecting it. Saying “I dropped my lens and the UV filter smashed, thus saving my lens”, is a far call from reality, it most likely would have been fine anyhow. The amount of horror stories I have read about the UV filter causing problems once broken seems to be more of a problem than dropped broken lenses (Glass shards scratching lenses, filters getting stuck and needing to be removed by professionals etc). The UV filter itself offers next to no structural strength to the lens, and then you have the problem of image quality. It’s a known fact that UV filters introduce flares and ghosting (well documented).

For me the introduced artifacts and the probability of the UV filter doing more damage than good makes it not worth it. Sure it may stop the occasional finger print of smudge, but these are easily removed.

So why do it?

Well most people do it because they get sold the idea that it’s an investment to protect their lenses. Some UV filters can retail for as much as a kit lens, the easier solution would be to replace the lens if it did get damaged, which the UV filter would most likely have not protected in the first place.

 

FOTGA Fader (Variable) ND

Recently I read a few reviews that indicated that the FOTGA ND 8 Stop was a good fader or variable ND filter, and should be considered for landscape work. Most information I read gave it favorable reviews with the only draw back being the typical black “cross” you get when using it to the extreme.

So here are the results from my testing:

Camera: Canon 6D with Canon 16-35mm f2.8 II + FOTGA Slim Wide Band Fader ND (W) 82mm.

Settings: Manual Focus, Av Mode, f5.6, 100 ISO.

The filter was tested at 16mm, 24mm and 35mm, with the filter set at Min, 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4.
It should be noted that the marks on the fader mean nothing, so I have also indicated the strength based on the camera shutter speed equating them to the closest f-stop(s) of light reduction when compared to no filter.

Post processing: All of the images were imported into light room 4.6, and had lens correction applied to ensure that the standard lens vignetting was removed. For the purposes of the test I was not concerned with sharpness or color balance.

Results & Conclusion:

FOTGA

I think the results speak for itself, for me with a full frame camera (6D) and a good wide lens, suitable for landscapes the results were terrible, bad copy? fake cheap knockoff? maybe, but I doubt it. In my option this filter is only useful on the min setting or 2 stops, beyond that significant vignetting is introduced. It may work better at focal lengths beyond 35mm, and when I get a step up ring I will trial it on longer focal lengths.

Bottom line this filter is not suitable for landscapes.