UV filters...are they degrading images?

[shutterdown]

I have a UV filter on every lens I own. All B+W.

I read once, that having a filter is unnecessary and that it degrades the image, because the light has to pass through another layer.

I don't really care much for using them as UV filters. They're really on the lens to protect the lens, but even that is, apparently, not a big deal to some.

To my point, will the filter degrade the image?

[Sean Setters]

Yes, the filter will degrade image quality to some degree. Higher quality filters degrade the image less. I have UV filters on all my lenses too--but I never felt the degradation was bad enough to go warrant not using them.

[Rocco]

I have a Tiffan Digital HT Ultraclear for when I'm not trying to achieve anything but protection of the front element.

[cls]

Yes, as already said, an extra pece of glass in front of the lens will degrade IQ. On the other hand this degradation isn't noticable in most cases. Where it may make a real difference is when shooting backlit scenes - the flat glass surface in front of the lens may make flare and ghosting significantly worse.

I too use filters on all my lenses, primarily because it's convenient for cleaning. (Instead of carefully wiping dust and fingerprints off the lens front element, I simply wash the filter under running water when needed.)

[conropl]

As stated already, there is a degridation, but with a good filter it is minimal and not worth losing any sleep over. Were it gets progressively worse is if you start stacking filters. If you stack a CPL on your UV filter, the IQ hit gets worse and it may start to be noticable. If you add a third filter (e.g., ND or GND), then you are getting into noticable degradation of the IQ.

Protection from dust, salt spray (sea side shots), scratches from cleaning, damage from dopping, etc., can be costly without the filter.

I would suggest leaving a good UV filter on uless you are going to use another filter. If you use another filter, it should be on a bare lens. If flare is an issues, then you may want to try the shot w/o the UV filter to see if it helps (becasue cls is correct, flare can be worse with the filter).

[shutterdown]

Thanks, all.

I never would stack filters, and the only time I don't use one is for night photography. It will produce the ghosting and flare.

[Agilulfo]

There are a B+W Clear filter on all of my lenses just for protection. That means I spend a lot of money in filters and I have saved even more in lenses.

It's all depends of the work you have to do. In my case lenses are in danger very often. Even when there are no risk of being damaged but it's raining or I'm in a dusty place, I keep the filter because I prefer to clean it instead of the lens.

I don't know how a clear filter affects to the image but I can assure you that no one of my customers have ever said "I don't want this pictures: they are taken with a filter".

[Raid]

If you want to learn more about the problem, here is an excellent article.

http://toothwalker.org/optics/filterflare.html

As I like high contrast and sun shots the cheap UV filters I brought were a disaster, lots of flare. SSince 2007, none of my lenses have filters and as you would expect the IQ has greatly improved.

As for using them for protection, my old walk around lens EF-S 17-85 received a 3mm long scratch at the edge of the front element. I now always put the lens cap on when not shooting.

Life is about risk management.