UV Filter with modern multi-coated lenses?

[tkamiya]

I'm wondering....

With modern lenses and coatings already on the lens, is UV protection by adding a filter really necessary? Has there been any recent study on this?

[Bill Burk]

I would use a UV filter if there was a risk of overexposed skies on mountain scenics due to a meter being less sensitive to UV than my film.

For interesting thoughts along this line you might follow some threads about Fred Picker and the Zone VI modifications to light meters.

He put in an IR filter to keep the meter from inflating the readings from foliage.

But he chose not to deal at all with UV. Instead he told customers to put a UV filter on the lens.

His simple, if inelegant, solution was to cut the UV at the camera because the meter doesn't properly read it.

You probably don't want UV anyway, so if you are not using any other filter, it might still be a good idea to use a UV filter today.

I've recently seen a post suggesting TMAX films doesn't need a yellow filter, and a post on this thread suggesting it doesn't need UV filter. Interesting thoughts, I don't know so I can't confirm. But it sounds like a good topic for follow-up.

[j-dogg]

If I remember correctly many of Canon's newer "L" lenses are UV coated from the factory.

[MrBaz]

I guess I should have posted more info.

I'm using (mainly) a Nikon F5 shooting various types of film. Mostly print films (the new Kodak Portra 160/400, a lot of Ektar 100, and some Fuji 160s), but I've been shooting a lot more B&W too (TMX, some TMY, and one roll of TRI-X but wanting to shoot some more).