[Lloyd_Christmas]

Hi all,

Usually the first thing I do when I get a new lens is to put a UV filter on it for protection. Right out of the box.
However, I met a photographer that said he never does that as he does want even one more piece of glass involve.
What is the general opinion of you all?

thanks,
Vince

[SpecialK]

There is no "general" opinion. There are those that think it pointless to use a "protection" filter and recommend a hood, cap and common sense instead. Others believe it is better safe than sorry as you never know when something will attack your lens.

Salesmen love them.

[jatrax]

To each his own.
There are some situations where a UV (actually a protective) filter can be useful. There is no need for a UV filter on digital as there was on film. I can see it might be useful to have a filter if you are at the beach or perhaps near the geysers at Yellowstone. Otherwise there is not really a good reason for one, IMHO.

I don't have one on any of my lenses for protection. However, I always use a lens hood.

My philosophy is that both a filter and a lens hood provide some measure of protection for the front element. The difference is that a lens hood will always improve the image and a filter will always degrade the image. Now, a top grade multi-coated filter in most situations will not degrade the image noticeably, but it will not improve it either. However, in some situations having a filter on introduces ghosts, and flare that ruin the image.

Note that I am speaking of 'protective' filters only here. I use circular polarizers, ND filters and ND grads when I need them. If adding a filter gives a specific benefit that offsets the image degradation caused by the filter then you are better to use it.

So the general opinion, distilled from the last few times this question was asked is that filters are not a good idea, BUT if you feel better having one on, then buy a good quality multi-coated one and be aware of when you should take it off to improve your images.

[DAKS]

Some folks keep a polarizing filter on when shooting outdoors (during the day).

[VoiceOfReason]

I used to keep one on all the time, but I found it would slightly degrade my images, so now I simply use a lens hood and be careful.

[promacjoe]

I am of the opinion that they are good to have in your kit. There are certain situations that you need to use them, and certain situations that you don't. For instance, My brother and his wife, went to Yellowstone a while back. She got a little too close to the geyser, and hot water hit the lens. Fortunately they had a polarizer on the lens. the hot water discolored the multicoating on the polarizer, But the $2200 lens was saved.

I've had kids poking my lens, mud and soda splashed on them, and sand blown against them. Luckily I had a lens protector filter on my lens. There are situations where i was glad to have them. But there are situations when they are a nuisance and get in the way of good photography.

Just remember they are not glued or welded in place. They do come off.

At least keep one in your kit, even if you don't use it often there are certain situations where you need to.

Stay safe and have fun.

Joe.

[abmj]

I can't agree with keeping a CPL on all the time. I use them a lot when they are called for but really don't want to take the 1 to 1-1/2 stop exposure hit when a CPL is not needed.

As for protection filters, I have one for each of my main lenses, carry them in my bag and put them on in bad conditions - blowing dust/sand/salt spray, rambunctious kids grabbing at the camera, etc. Most of the time in good conditions they stay off, if only to make it easier to put on other filters as I need them without juggling filters.

I had an interesting conversation with wildlife legend Moose Peterson on this very subject. He said he has done his own tests, found no bad effects when using proper camera technique, and has put a high-grade protection filter on every lens he owns. Considering the prices he gets on his prints and magazine sales, I figure he may be on to something. Those photo editors and clients don't seem to notice any "degradation" in his work.

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Thanks!
I do like circular polarizer and have I handy on sunny days.
Agreed that it's good to have protection based on the conditions externally that day.

[jatrax]

I had an interesting conversation with wildlife legend Moose Peterson on this very subject. He said he has done his own tests, found no bad effects when using proper camera technique, and has put a high-grade protection filter on every lens he owns. C

Moose likes filters so much he has his own: http://www.amazon.com/Hoya-Peterson-Warming-Circular-Polarizer/dp/B0000AIS2S

[Ahab]

Back when I moved from film to digital I was told you didn't need a filter for protection but a lens hood was imperative. My cameras have been on all the continents under all conditions and none of my lenses have suffered. But, I don't allow children or monkeys near them.

[dtmateojr]

Hi all,

Usually the first thing I do when I get a new lens is to put a UV filter on it for protection. Right out of the box.
However, I met a photographer that said he never does that as he does want even one more piece of glass involve.
What is the general opinion of you all?

thanks,
Vince

I don't use a UV filter.
http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/n00bism-2/