Do UV Filters ACTUALLY Ruin Your Image Quality? 

So… do you use UV filters?

The main issue with UV filters is scenarios where the lighting is from behind the subject or bright light coming in from an angle. These cause loss of contrast/flaring/ghosting. The only situation where I'll use a UV filter is if I'm shooting if very dusty/sandy/salty conditions. At that point they become sacrificial against those elements.

I looked toward a ridge speckled with houses and large patches of trees ( about 3km/2 miles away), while I was wearing my glasses. Then I hand held a UV filter and positioned it so that it covered half my view. The UV side made the washed out blue/green trees more vibrantly green. The details of houses were also sharper and with more contrast. So the filter improved my image by cutting thru the haze. So for any subjects at a distance, the filter wins. Probably no effect on indoor or close subjects.

My lenses never even leave the box until I get a nice quality UV filter to put on it from day one.

I use high quality clear filters on all my lenses for protection only. Don't listen to all these ding dongs in the comments claiming it degrades image quality. You know what does? Scratching the front element against granite rock as you scramble up the side of mountain. People that don't use filters either have loads of disposable income or don't actually use their gear.

Guys the one things you should remember about it filter. The longer focus distance you use with lens the more filter’s glass imply on sharpness. Image has drastic difference with 500 mm in terms of of sharpness. But for 35 mm it’s barely visible. Try to observe by binoculars through you window and you understand this effect.

Issue with the UV filter is when the ring gets bent, you can really screw the threads on the front of your lens; dropping a lens is typically going to fall on its edge anyway, not smack in the middle of the glass... gamble either way, but I do like using hoods for, both, protection and its originally intended use

I use UV filters which saved my lens from a scratch by a fall and sand in my lens cap. Remove the filter when shooting into direct light to avoid lens flare created by light bouncing between the lens front element and the filter's back side

A few months ago I had my camera on a tripod next to my auto height-adjustable desk and I forgot it was connected to my pc with a cord. I changed the height of my desk and the tripod felt forward, so that the lens crashed to the flow with full force. Thankfully I had a UV filter on it. The glass of the filter broke and the ring was totally deformed. It was almost impossible to get if of the lens, but I managed to do it in the end. The filter absorbed (filtered 😅) most of the force, so the lens wasn't damaged. The 10$ filter saved my 1600$ lens :)

I live on a salt water environment. The last thing I need on a $3k lens is salt or quartz dust (sand). No one is gonna look at any image: “OMG! He used a UV filter”. Get real. 🤡

Your A/B samples do exhibit a noticeable loss of colour vibrance/fidelity, and possibly a slight loss of contrast. This would be even more pronounced in challenging lighting situations, particularly involving backlight or stray light. Will this matter to most viewers or clients? Probably not, at least not in most cases, I should think. But when I look at my own photographs on a calibrated monitor, I do notice, and I care. Other people's mileage may vary, and that's perfectly legit too.

Any type of glass not specifically designed and formulated for your exact lens specifications will cause some loss in quality. Manufacturers design and build their lenses to meet very precise specifications to produce the desired image quality and provide the best performance. The moment you put a third party glass in front of it, you are affecting that design to some degree. The only thing a higher end filter does is minimize the amount of loss in quality, to the point that it is near impossible to notice unless you pixel peep. But yes, the quality still degrades. The only way to maintain peak 100% quality and performance from your lens is to shoot as unobtrusive as possible. Hence why the best protection for your lens is the lens hood it comes with. In my humble opinion, the only time I see a filter being beneficial is when you’re shooting in extremely harsh weather conditions where the lens hood may not be enough due to direct oncoming projectiles, like a sandstorm, or a firefight in an active combat zone. Otherwise, pop your lens hood on, shoot straight from your lens’ manufactured glass, and enjoy the high image quality you paid for. If you’re that worried about exposing your lens to the world, you should consider less expensive gear. If buying something expensive only brings anxiety and worry, it’s too expensive.

Well, for his type of simple photography the UV filter will not affect his images. UV filters only affect zoom lenses at long range, scenarios with lots of lights and reflections as most filters even the expensive ones doesn't have enough coatings. That is why camera lenses are expensive because of multiple coatings in it to make contrast and sharper images, then you put a UV filter with cheap coatings. I have a journalist friend which experience issues with UV filters in wildlife and flash events settings

Next video idea: UV filter drop test!

No doubt that filters can protect frontelement on lenses. However an additional piece of glas will have an effect on optical and potential AF performance. Using a high resolution camera like Z8 and long lenses, the impact even using expensive highend B&W filters are very visible.

Thank you! Just ordered a lens and now will be getting a UV filter!!!!!

Using good quality and not necessarily expensive coated UV or protective filters on my lenses gives me peace of mind and my photos look sharp enough so I'm good with that, I think they make very little difference.

There is a critical flaw in your assessment. If you do research into optics, the main problem with glass is called dispersion. There is no such thing as a zero dispersion glass. Even with lenses. Good lenses will have LD or Low Dispersion elements, but the light waves still disperse bouncing through the glass crystal structure. That affects sharpness. The more glass, the greater the dispersion and ultimately, the less sharpness in the image. That’s why prime lenses are the sharpest because they have fewer elements. Super zooms like 18-300mm or 28-300 are not very sharp. If you want a fairly sharp lens, you will choose between a 2:1 or 3:1 zoom ratio to minimize loss of sharpness from dispersion. So, yes, UV filters will degrade your image. It all depends on how much image quality are you willing to sacrifice.

you know the "cheap glass in front of expensive glass" argument has always interested me. Like when I stand in front of a window and snap a shot -- if the window is clean, you can easily shoot thru it without a noticeable loss in quality. Plus having a cheap protection layer like you mentioned, can keep from scratching the element.. which we all appreciate lol

The only actual problem I've had with a UV filter was when I was shooting in like -10 C and the heat from my hands kept causing it to fog up

why did you not test in direct sunlight? This test seems pretty pointless.

I have tried using cheap filters and picture quality is bad till I used Haida filters and try it to zoom 200% it looks the same without filters

Dropped my canon lens the other day, Tiffen uv filter cracked, but the lens face was totally protected. 👍🏻

Interesting- I just shot a lacrosse game at sunset and noticed a drop in quality- I had a UV filter on- Now the quality was slight, but I don't have patience for loss of quality! I was shooting with UV, and I saw your shoots on an Apple monitor, a high-quality LG monitor, and an OLED TV monitor, all paired together- I see more color issues in your UV and UVless photos- But it is there. I think your point was proven above protection- UV has purpose outdoors in sunlight, but past sunlight, it is wrong- Just my POV

I have tested UV filters on my cameras, too. Ask the anti-UV folks if they have tested anything. I can guess the answer.

Just skip the filter and use your lens hood ....

It's also the mechanics and engineering of a simple UV filter. It's a flat clear glass. Simple. The image (in order to be impacted by an added lens element) would have to add a bevel, magnification, and or coating etc... ... It is just a clear piece of glass. Simple optical mechanics. No impact.

Poor subject, no detail, for such test. In your case, you will never probably see a difference. So your good wit that.

Yes they do. In general they are useless on modern cameras anyway. Filters for protection are also more of a risk to your lens than anything and generally just result in scratched up filters when the front lens elements would have not been prone to the same damage.

Test starts at 3:12

Waste the money if you want. Refraction is physics. Extra layers of glass can cause refraction. Your opinions are just that. I have NEVER used UV filters (but ALWAYS a lens hood) and have never had a lens damaged or scratched. Why believe that trope that just gets you to spend money on a useless filter? UV/Skylights are a SCAM. I stopped selling them in the early 1980's in the camera store chains I ran. People often then put the polarizer ON TOP of the UV and NEVER use lens hoods. No large format shooter I EVER met or saw used "protective" filters.

Yes it does and it's been proven by science. it always make a change in the color the digital sensor because it doesn't need uv protection because they already have is. this kind of videos is overdone you should try and be original

Guys the one things you should remember about it filter. The longer focus distance you use with lens the more filter’s glass imply on sharpness. Image has drastic difference with 500 mm in terms of of sharpness. But for 35 mm it’s barely visible. Try to observe by binoculars through you window and you understand this effect.