Happy Monday everyone. Wanted to share a cautionary tale on why I think EVERYONE should own a UV lens filter. Is it for UV? No – not at all. Its for a few dollars worth of insurance.
I have a 50mm 1.4 Nikon Lens that I absolutely love. Recently though, I havent given it as much use as I used to, so its just been sitting in my office. This weekend, I wanted to go ahead and use it and I noticed that the front of it was smashed! Needless to say I started panicking that I had just wrecked my wonderful lens.
Upon closer inspection, I noticed that while the lens had taken some drop – the only thing that was really dented was the UV filter that I had attached to it – a Hoya 52mm filter. A sigh of relief came over me after a few minutes of turning to get it off of the end of the lens.
Hoya 52mm UVlens – About 13 bucks
My 50mm 1.4 – About 300 bucks.
This isnt the first time that i’ve heard of tales of the UV filter saving a lens. They are out there, and now I am a faithful believer in them – even if I never really got the UV thing to begin with. 
Tom Green on Flash Video
Today we also have Tom Green giving us a quick video on coding with Flash video. Definitely worth a peep. Make sure you check him out!
Basic Coding Flash Video – Tom Green
That’s it for today everyone. I’ll see you guys back here tomorrow morning!
amen on the lens filter. i was taking some very close up photos of
my son welding, and the filter got hit with some slag (hot metal)
ruined the filter, saved my lens.
I never understood the use of a UV filter strickly for lens protection. Why would you stick a piece of 13 glass over the expensive glass of a lens. I guess it would be ok on a consumer lens but what about an L? It just seems odd when everyone talks about trying to find a lens that isn’t soft.
2 years ago my wife dropped a 75-300 Canon lens with a UV filter on it. The filter was destroyed but the lens was and is still fine. I have a UV filter on all of my lenses. From http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#lens_protection “Light loss and aberrations seldom reach practical levels, but flare’s a fatal image flaw, and a common one at that, especially when the sun’s low in the sky near your subject.”
This seems like a subject that people have pretty different feelings on. I think I kind of echo the thoughts by the other Mike…
Maybe it’s in my head but I noticed a difference in the quality and number of tack sharp pictures that I was getting on both a 50mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4 when I had a filter on versus the times I didn’t have filters. I ‘m primarily talking about the times that I was shooting wide open.
Anyway, I’d love to hear more of your thoughts (R.C.) and anybody else.
I keep them on my lenses like a secondary lens cap. When I get a new lens, I get a new UV filter for it. When I shoot sunsets or other scenes that cause flare with the filter attached, I remove it to shoot. I then replace it with the lens cap when I’m done. It’s cheap insurance.
I still use 35mm film…..I know a artifact now, but a UV filter is useful for film cameras? right?