UV filters are used wrongly by most photographers

Most photographers use UV filters on their lenses to protect them, as is common, and there has been much debate about the best filter for a camera lens that should be used permanently on lenses to protect them, but will the UV filter really protect camera lenses from shock?

A lot of photographers disagree with this idea and suggest using a lens hood instead. What is so common in all of these discussions is that no one can persuade the other. So we decided to ask only the companies that manufacture these filters? They can offer some ideas and explain exactly what their filters are supposed to be used for.

During the past month, I have been in discussions with several manufacturers of filters. Here's what the UV filter manufacturers say ...

Zeiss Filters

The first company I spoke with was Zeiss and it confirmed quite clearly that UV filters are only designed to correct visual problems.

"It was developed only to solve optical problems (polarizer - reduce reflections, color saturation)."
I asked if Zeiss offers any cover support or warranty for filters if they fail to protect or break the lens from impact. Zeiss asserted that this is not its intended purpose and therefore not the basis for the claim.

Sigma filters

In addition to producing some of my favorite lenses, Sigma also produces filters. One of the filters they produce is the WR Ceramic filter. I was sure these filters could provide protection from shock damage, but based on the answers I received, it's not so clear.

Regarding UV filters, they are very sharp and dry: they are not designed to protect. It can prevent minor scratches and surface issues, however, shock and drop protection is not its purpose.
“Basically, the UV filter is designed to reduce the effect of UV rays during photography. Therefore, there is no purpose of protection, but it can be said to have the effect of preventing scratches on the lens as a result. “

Schneider Filters - B + W

Schneider chose to email me some information. I would have preferred to talk to someone to clear up any misconceptions, unfortunately, it seems that this was not something they wanted.

Having said that, the PDF they sent was very effective in answering most of my questions. He described exactly what UV filters were designed for.

“But above all, its unique surface of dirt and water repellency makes cleaning filters easier. In this way, the filters can also perform the front lens protection function. ”

Hoya Filters

I bought many ND filters from Hoya. I think they make great products and the prices are very reasonable too. I recommend Hoya and for that reason, I was slightly disappointed with the lack of clarity.

When talking to them, Hoya assured that protective filters and UV filters are designed to protect the lenses.

"UV filters are also designed as protectors with the aim of providing lens protection without negatively affecting image quality."

When I asked what kind of protection UV filters provide, Hoya simply replied that they are not making any such claims.

"We do not claim that as a manufacturer."

Gobe ​​filters

The thing I love about Gobe filters is that they are great value for money and they never compromise on quality. I don't understand how they can retail their products so cheaply.

Gopi asked similar questions that she posed to everyone and the answers were very similar. Gobi emphasized that the main reason for using UV filters is to cut off the amount of UV rays that hit the sensor. Gopi mentioned that its filters could provide protection for lenses, too.

“Designed to cut UV rays to sharpen the image, especially when shooting over long distances. It also protects precious lens glass from objects and accidents, the reason why UV lens is used for protection is that it can remain almost always on the lens and you can install all other filters on top of it. ”

There is no evidence that UV filters are useful for protecting the lens

Based on the research I've prepared and the discussions I've had with manufacturers, there is absolutely no evidence that UV filters can protect lenses from impact damage. So, how does this belief continue?

For the most part, I'm assuming many of us have seen pictures of a broken filter attached to a lens. Accompanied by a story about how the filter protected it. This type of "evidence" deserves nothing and should not be used to measure this claim. There are so many variables that are not taken into account, and coming to such a big conclusion is quite impulsive and foolish.

UV filters are not the true insurance for the lens

I have heard a number of photographers describe UV filters as "cheap insurance," which is terrible advice. The question many seem to be asking is, would you rather have a cheap filter separator or pay to replace an expensive frontal element? Well my answer to that is not.

I'd rather pay the extra for my insurance and have the lens repaired or replaced. Insurance is the actual coverage, not just the perceived coverage.

If you own expensive camera equipment or are a professional photographer, you need well-suited insurance. UV filters aren't anything near an alternative.

Final thoughts

When the manufacturers themselves don't claim that UV filters protect against impact damage, I think it's safe to say that this idea is mostly nonsense. I can assume that manufacturers know more about their products than most photographers. In fact, many manufacturers assert that protection is not what it was designed for.

Despite this, I believe that people who believe that UV filters provide any kind of shock protection will not change their minds anytime soon. I doubt any kind of statements from manufacturers or even guides will change this idea. However, I felt it was important to get some clarity from the manufacturers and act to dispel this myth.