If one argument irks photographers, it’s whether one should protect the front element of a lens with a UV filter. Should we use a sunshade instead? Settle the debate with this definitive answer by testing out the Urth Plus+ professional filter.
Last week, I bought a UV Filter Urth Plus+. I use their ND filter and am very impressed with their optical quality. Historically, I’ve also used their UV filter. Part of the reason I stopped is because a one-time representative of the camera company told me that the elements in front of their lenses are much sturdier and, therefore, more resistant to damage. However, I see Digital system OM – brand of camera I use – and Nikon, classicAnd sony are all producing their protective filters. If lens manufacturers sell their own protectors, there must be a reason. Should I start protecting my lenses with filters again?
History of UV filters
Back in the days when film cameras dominated, we used to fit a skylight filter into our lenses. The filters are very light magenta and will counteract the blues that appear on film when shooting in daylight. There are two common types: 1A and a slightly darker 1B filter. People will choose a stronger UV filter if shooting in conditions with strong ultraviolet light, such as at high altitudes.
These filters have a secondary function: they protect the front element of the lens from damage.
With the advent of digital cameras, debates began to erupt. First, digital sensors are not susceptible to ghosting caused by UV rays on film. Second, the in-camera auto white balance is outstanding, so the blues produced by sunlight are automatically corrected. Then third, and this is where the controversy originates, it is argued that the increasingly improved resolution of both the sensor and the lens means that lower quality glass placed in front of the lens will reduce image quality. I wanted to prove or disprove this theory, so I tested a UV filter.
Arguments for using UV filters
I have real-life examples of why filters should be used:
- I do a lot of beach shots. One night, I was shooting a fireworks display by the sea and noticed that the lens had water droplets sprayed on it. I carefully wiped them away to continue shooting but still scratched the front element; sand must also be present.
- A few years ago, I bought an old Zeiss lens attached to a camera for very little money from a market vendor. The person at the booth told me the lens was broken. I love experimenting with old video equipment, so I bought this camera without looking too closely at it. It costs the same about 7 dollars. When I brought the camera home, I discovered it was just a broken UV filter. That sacrificial piece of glass did its job and saved the lens.
- I’m shooting an evening event, and a kid loves to take pictures of me. Always wanting to encourage young people, I let him look through the viewfinder, and he immediately pressed his greasy fingers to the glass. It was my fault; I should guide where to keep it. But cleaning the filter will be much quicker than carefully degreasing the lens, which will remain dormant for the rest of the shoot.
- A relative of mine is a wedding photographer. He bought a new professional lens for his camera and on the first shoot he used it, a bridesmaid sprayed her hair with hairspray.
- In addition, the UV filter can help eliminate fog on a summer day.
Those are the reasons I started using a high quality UV filter to protect the lens. At the time, I didn’t do any image quality measurements, but there didn’t seem to be a difference between the photo I took with the filter and the one without the filter.
The filter may be faulty
I once bought a filter that created strange artifacts in photos. This is especially noticeable with any light orbs that are out of focus. They have distinct lines running across them.
I contacted the manufacturer and sent them photos demonstrating the problem. They said it was a manufacturing defect and sent me a replacement. That solved the problem. The alternative was better. However, looking at my back catalog, my newer gear and the Urth Plus+ filter give better results.
Recently, I visited a photography group on Facebook that I occasionally join. Someone complained about the image quality of their new lens compared to the one they borrowed. Looking at the sample photos, I could see ugly artifacts like the ones I had observed. I asked the photographer if they installed a UV filter. They said they had. It’s a Tiffin, so it must be of good quality. Removing the filter solved the problem. She bought another one, and that was no problem at all. Obviously, UV filters are subject to manufacturing defects like any product.
Does the hood provide better protection?
Many photographers swear by using a lens hood instead of a UV filter. Hoods are designed to prevent sunlight from entering the glass from an oblique angle, which can blur your image and cause unwanted flare. They can protect the front element of the lens from bumps, rain, and accidental rubbing against clothing. Furthermore, they don’t add a layer of glass in front of the lens, which can affect image quality.
However, like UV filters, they are not designed for those additional protective purposes.
Many quality lenses are made so that the front element holder will automatically cut out on impact, thus protecting the rest of the lens. It acts like a conflict zone in a car. The hood increases leverage making this more likely. I had it happen. Moreover, the hood does not perfectly protect the front element. Someone I know dropped a camera on a rock. Although the roof is installed, the glass is still cracked.
For me, it’s not an either/or argument. I have used both. I’ve replaced scratched filters in the past to protect my lenses from damage, and I’ve always attached a lens hood to the lens, which also offers some protection.
Check the filter
I selected the best quality Urth Plus+ filter for this test. I like Urth. They are an environmentally positive company, which is essential to me. They plant trees in the rainforest after each purchase; More than a million have been planted so far.
For comparison, I also bought some cheaper filters. Some I’ve been given, and I’ve also bought a few.
To start the tests, I attached OM System OM-1 equipped with 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO . Lens ABOVE my tripod overlooking the water with the sun reflected on it. I shoot in aperture priority mode at f/5.6, so I get continuous lens operation. I left the lens out of focus, underexposed, and captured sunlight glistening on the water, as this would accentuate any optical imperfections.
I started with the cheaper K&F Concept, Hoya and Kood filters. In the resulting images, concentric circles appear inside and around the light spheres. After that, a bit of blur was clearly visible when I focused the lens on the subject. The drop in image quality was enough for me to conclude that I would never use them.
What about more expensive filters?
When using the UV Urth Plus + filter (professional standard), I did not see any difference in image quality between with and without the filter.
The out-of-focus light spheres break, which can happen due to the natural movement of water and uneven reflected light. However, there is no visible banding or repeating pattern. In later tests, I pointed the lens at the out-of-focus LED and the results were very clear. Not so with cheap filters.
In later tests, I pointed the lens at the out-of-focus LED and the results were very clear. Below, the first image without the filter and the second image, on the right, with Urth. I took this handheld shot, so there is a slight difference in size. The LEDs in the image are rectangular, occupying the horizontal lines just seen.
On my first day of testing, the sun was constantly hiding behind the clouds, so light levels were constantly changing. Therefore, other comparative tests are difficult to perform. However, photos taken with and without the Urth filter are equally sharp.
The two seascapes above were taken a few seconds apart. The one on the right has a filter attached. Small changes in light are caused by fast moving clouds. Subsequent tests showed no color change when I added and removed filters.
In the upper slider, the image on the left has the filter fitted.
The morning was clear, the weather was milder, and I managed to take some shots with the filter on and off the lens. There is no change in white balance. There is no additional lens flare when pointing the camera almost directly at the sun.
Back home, I tested the exposure on a white wall simply because daylight became brighter quickly when I photographed the sunrise. The exposure is identical both with and without the filter.
What I like and what can be improved
Final tests have assured me that it is worth attaching a good quality filter to the camera and the Urth Plus + filter is just that. I can’t see a difference between using a filter and not.
They are beautifully packaged in a recyclable, plastic-free metal and cardboard box. There is a lens cloth included with the filter. Be sure to look inside that box for an entry code on a website, so Urth will plant five more of the five they plant when you purchase the filter.
The filter itself includes a sturdy yet slender metal stand. The German-made Schott B270 optical glass has a 30-layer coating.
I can’t think of anything other than positive things to say about the filter. If you shoot with professional standard glasses and want to protect it, I recommend this filter.
I can’t say the same for any of the cheaper filters I’ve tried. I must add that I did not test the more affordable filters on low-end lenses. For those who shoot on a budget or even use vintage glasses, are they okay? This experiment doesn’t prove it one way or the other. Maybe I’ll buy a low-end camera with a budget lens to test that out.
I’d love to hear about your experience and see your experiment with and without the filters you use.
