UV Filter or no? (1 Viewer)

At the risk of opening up some kind of endless debate (sorry, I didn't find an existing thread)...

For years I've used "V-28 UV" filters on my Nikon Coolpix 950, 995, and 4500. I started doing that to protect the stock lens and I recall it also helps prevent blotchy skies in photos. But this was for basic photos from the camera using no lens, a 2x telephoto, or 8x teledapter.

But it never occurred to me to question whether using it with the 8x teledapter (CrystalVue 8x Sharpshooter) was a bad thing (maybe reducing the already limited light?). Is it?

And as I get used to my new scope (Celestron C90) and tripod before taking them out into the field for the first time, it suddenly dawned on me to ask: should I continue using the UV filter when digiscoping (daylight animal photos) or should I remove it?

I should add that I'll be taking the photos from the eyepiece (afocal), if that matters.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

There have been a number of threads on UV filters over the years, all coming to the same consensus that not only are filters unnecessary for lens protection--the lens hood takes care of that--but that even the best of them (and certainly mediocre specimens) can have a negative effect on image quality. An exception might be certain extreme situations, e.g. when sea watching under breezy conditions where spray is a problem, but there's no sea watching in Nevada and I personally threw away my UV filters years ago.

I'm not sure what a "lens hood" is...the Nikon Coolpix (9x0 and 4500) series pretty much just has the lens right there on the front of the camera. Since it's not something I can replace if it's damaged, I prefer to keep it covered in some fashion.

Though a valid point can be made that if the camera is spending all it's time with some OTHER lens on it, then the UV lens is redundant. (Makes mental note.)

But since I'm going to be switching from using a long lens to afocal photography through the sight of a scope (without lenses on the camera), the issue of protecting the native bits of the camera come back into play, since it'll be out in the open again.

So what are the "negative effects on image quality" caused by "mediocre" UV lenses?

Would help me decide how anal I want to be about the image quality vs. the small but real risk of the exposed built-in lens.

As I've said, there have been several earlier threads on this subject. Read them and all your questions will be answered. Nothing will have changed in the interim.

You don't know what a lens hood is? Wow!
Edit: But point-&-shoots usually don't have them, fair enough.

I know what lens hoods are, but didn't think it applied to the Coolpix 9x0 and 4500 series as stated, so I thought you were talking about some other use of the term I wasn't aware of. ;-p

(And yes, I like my "Ph.D."...Push Here Dummy...cameras, though usually with a Prosumer flavor.)

The search engine in this forum software is...limited. "UV filter" won't search. Can you suggest a search term that will find me those past threads? Thanks!

I went around Google and THERE the feeling is UV filters are cheap insurance against built-in lens damage and that the vast majority of the "UV filters degrade the image" is a myth except in incredibly specific circumstances for the incredibly skilled photographer with incredibly high-end equipment. In other words, not me. ;-p

So I am not saying your observation is wrong, but it's the "other side of the argument" I want to read-up on. I prefer to get the balanced view when I can...if you're suggesting it's a problem, I want to know what that problem is.

Thanks again!

Just plain "filter" should work well enough as a search term I imagine, though you'd probably have to do a little winnowing afterwards.

The principal problem I've personally had with UV filters--& that mainly in the tropics--is condensation between filter and lens which can be a real nuisance (particularly when combined with the filter sticking to the lens mount making it difficult to unscrew as often happens under field conditions). My most traumatic experience with a "protective" filter was when I dropped my scope on the airport floor and the filter shattered with such force that the badly scarred but otherwise undamaged objective lens had to be replaced!

With respect to optical effects, the shattered filter was a replacement for a cheaper (but still fairly expensive) one that I got rid of after noticing its deleterious effect on image contrast.
The new filter was much better--so much so that I never made any real effort at assessing its possible effects on optical quality.