UV Filter or No UV Filter: Can You Tell the Difference?

I wouldn't think of going naked after spending as much on that fine Canon glass as I do.  I don't use a UV filter though.  I buy expensive CLEAR filters that are in the range of $150-200.  

I’m a belt and suspenders guy and cringe at the thought of damaging the front element of any of my lenses. I will only use high quality filters and feel they have little if any effect on image quality.  I also always use lens hoods to help too. This article makes me feel better about that belief. 

This is a GREAT article and I really appreciate the effort that was put into it. That said, I love seeing them side by side. I DO see a slight difference. Without the filter the picture looks a hair sharper. That said, nothing a tiny bit of sharpening in Lightroom couldn't account for. I've been a full-time pro for 16 years, and I do use a front filter. I like the front filters when I shoot weddings because I'm constantly changing out lenses and I don't have to worry about scratching my front element (I don't use lens caps). After multiple years, my front filters were pretty hammered and I did replace many of them.

Sometimes when I'm working to get a flair just right, I do take of my filter. In-short I see it as a lens cap I rarely have to remove.

The flip, I have two associates who don't use UV filters. They figure if they scratch their lens they'll send them in and have the front element replaced. Completely opposite philosophy then mine.

In the end, it seems like potato - or potato - all personal preference.

Many Pro photographers won't use them UNLESS in a harsh environment like dust, blowing sand, salt or sulfur.  I keep them for those instances- photographing hot springs in Yellowstone- all my UV filters were damaged and tossed.  Lenses were fine.  

I insure my lenses with Valuable Personal Property insurance, sometimes called a Personal Articles Floater, which is all risk coverage with no deductible. Never made a claim but it's comforting to have. Anyway I never use a UV filter, though I have some. I do use a polarizer filter often. I never damaged a front lens element, or a filter, in 50 plus years of serious amateur work; perhaps I'm careful enough, or just lucky. That said if I plan a photo walk in foul weather location, I might put a UV filter in my camera bag. Cheers.

There is an even more important advantage to using a filter: weather sealing. When shooting in harsh weather conditions, I have found that a UV or clear filter does a great job over time at keeping your lenses from developing mold inside. Good lenses have a rear weather seal (rubber gasket) that keeps the connection with the camera body protected. However, lenses have many ways in which moisture can get inside. One of them us through the front of the lens (if you have ever serviced a lens, you know). It may seem like a trivial measure but in my case it has made a significant difference.

I was hoping to be proven wrong, but I honestly see a slight edge of sharpness and clarity in the BEFORE images. Very subtle but it's there. Is it a meaningful difference, probably not. 

Someone debates that it is not worth a $50 filter for the $200 lens.  I think it is worth an expensive good coating filter for some cases. Old and cheap lenses are usually coated with fewer layers or poor coating, creating a vignetting and flare unless you see these as a bonus or special effect.  The latest filter technology provides super-multi-coating to correct some vignetting and flare (especially under direct sunlight); dust and water repellants coating is also more convenient than you cleaning the front element of your lenses.

All comments are about use as a protective filter, but there is UltraViolet block too.

I consistently use a protective filter. I cannot see any noticeable degradation of image quality. 

3 times I have dropped or bumped a lens and the filter saved the lens. I will not purchase a lens and not have a filter to protect.

Personally whether to use a lens shade or a glass lens protector, or none depends on your own shooting style or individual requirements.

For some people OAL(overall lenght) is not important so a lens shade is ample protection for the lens, and also protects against stray light.

For me a short OAL is important, especially when I am carrying 4 or 5 lenses, the added length of a lens shade makes carrying and changing lenses more cumbersome   I know one photog who uses both a lens protector AND a lens shade!

Personally, I was using Tiffen's UV filter, but recently I discovered Hoya's EVO Protector line, it is advertised as having fingerprint-resistant coatings, I find that so far it works pretty good, if  I do get a fingerprint on it etc I just wipe it off with my shirt tail, smudges on the front lens element will definitely degrade your picture.

I don't know how much it would cost to replace a front lens element but I image it would be pretty expensive, so expensive that it would probably be worthwhile to buy a whole new lens rather than repairing the old one. If had a lens protector you would just replace it at a nominal cost.

Here are my thoughts - a standard Tiffen 77mm UV Protector Filter sells for $13.99 here on the B&H website. B&H makes at least 100% markup, SO the filter costs less than $7 to B&H, Tiffen has to make at least a 100% markup to stay in business, SO the filter costs less than $3.50 to make. The metal ring of the filter has to be 3/4 of the price, SO less than $2.33 to make the metal ring and less than $1.17 for the glass, if both items are made, in house. If not, even less. 

If one does the same math on a manufacturer's lens, they are investing a fair amount more in all of the coatings that are added to the lens to protect and eliminate all unnecessary light flare, uv, etc, etc and polishing of each element. The hood is also designed and made to keep out the maximum amount of stray light without vignetting. The lens is designed with the hood in mind and the two work perfectly, together. A hood will protect a lens from light flare, damage, fingers, dropping, etc, etc. 

SO, why in the world world would you place a, less than $1.17 piece of monster glass in front of your expensive glass? 

Thanks for showing this.

I wasn't really expecting to see a difference.. and maybe it's just me.. but I think it looks better without.

A bit sharper is all, but I will have to compare this on my camera also.  Hm.

I would have like to see some night scenes with light sources. Even the best UV's I've used have ghosting. 

I easily see the difference. Surprised you do not.Is your browser color managed? There is a sharpness difference as well.

Using a UV Filters for all Lens are the easiest ways to start, indeed!!! They're not as difficult because it was not as being mentioned and upon. Finally, I rather preferred after over before in so it could be more clearer, indeed!!!