[clickclick]

I'm in the filter camp, but I would caveat that with only using the best filters you can find, e.g. I've settled on B+W for most of what I use. As I read this thread, I'm getting the urge to go do some comparison shots on different lenses though. I shoot a lot around water, and feel like the UV filter does improve cutting through haze, even though some will say that's only for film. I also use polarizers quite a bit in the water scenario, but that's not really comparable. Perhaps pick up the best filter you can afford for your favorite lens and try some controlled shots on a tripod and see what you find.

[Aussie]

As others have said, this is one of the great debates in photo gear and, like most great debates, is completely polarising (pun intended...keep reading!) but I don't think anyone on either side of the argument has ever been persuaded to cross the floor. There are good and bad arguments for both sides of this one but at risk of derision and scorn...if you MUST put a filter on your lens, for general, walking about photography, I use a good quality (=not cheap!) circular polariser. Yes, you lose 1-2 stops of light but, unless you're in low light, that won't matter too much and a polariser will improve many photographs.

[clickclick]

I'd add one more thought to this polarizing discussion (sorry, couldn't resist). If you decide to strap a filter on for protection, I'd go for one that is UV versus just clear. At least that way if there is any benefit from UV, you get it. Plain clear certainly isn't doing anything but adding a layer of glass, so might as well think your getting something, even if not... And yes, this is an opinion and worth what you paid for it

[promacjoe]

I acknowledge both sides of this argument. And I always keep protector filters in my bag. on one side people think that filters are only good for extreme damage. That's not what therefore. If something is going to hit your lens hard enough to break the filter, It would damage an unprotected lens as well. So to me that's kind of a stupid scenario. at least with a filter, your lens has a chance of surviving. But extreme damage like that is not why i keep a filter in my bag. It's for the common occurrences that show up on a regular basis while outshooting. The kids poking at your lens with there dirty hands, mud, chemical spray such as salt or the occasional drink that might be splashed on you. And the sand blowing on your lens, which can fog the glass, or at least the coating on the glass. Note: this may be a Long-term process. Every particle of sand that hits your lens can do a little bit more damage. It might not be noticeable at first, But over the years you may find more and more scratches in your lens coating. And when a sudden gust of wind comes up, the only thing you can do is point your camera downwind and hope for the best. my brother and his wife took a vacation to Yellowstone. While photographing the geyser, she got a little bit too close, and the hot spray from the geyser hit her fairly new Nikon 80–200 F2.8 lens. Fortunately they had a polarizer on it. The incident left a large permanent mark on the polarizer just off center. But the expensive camera lens was spared.

protector filters are good to have in your bag, you just need to know when to use them, And when not to.

[bigdavephoto]

I am on the side of this dance floor for having a filter on a lens. My reasoning is a little bit different then others.


In my case, the reason I do is because it is cheaper to replace a 20 dollar UV filter then it is to replace XXX dollar lens. I could manage the filter but not the lens due to the position I am in.


If you are wondering, I am taking care of my father and because he is a bit of a fall risk and can no longer cook, I have to stay home with him and sadly, the job doesn't pay any money.

[MarkJerling]

I am on the side of this dance floor for having a filter on a lens. My reasoning is a little bit different then others.
In my case, the reason I do is because it is cheaper to replace a 20 dollar UV filter then it is to replace XXX dollar lens. I could manage the filter but not the lens due to the position I am in.

Not an easy job. Like you, I have limited funds for photography, so I share your sentiments exactly.

[BigMackCam]

I am on the side of this dance floor for having a filter on a lens. My reasoning is a little bit different then others.
In my case, the reason I do is because it is cheaper to replace a 20 dollar UV filter then it is to replace XXX dollar lens. I could manage the filter but not the lens due to the position I am in.
If you are wondering, I am taking care of my father and because he is a bit of a fall risk and can no longer cook, I have to stay home with him and sadly, the job doesn't pay any money.

Dave, that's a tough position. Both of my parents live with me, but both are more-or-less as healthy as I am - at present. I've mentally prepared myself for the future, though...

I understand completely why you're protective of your equipment. There is no right or wrong with UV filters, despite the often passionate views for and, especially, against. The right choice is what works best for you - giving you a balance between IQ you're happy with, and peace of mind. I acknowledge the arguments against using them, and even agree with the basic reasoning, but I'll continue to leave mine in place some of the time, that's for sure.

I will, however, offer a tale of caution for all readers of the thread...

I went to a fantastic museum recently and took my Q7 with me. I took a lot of shots, many of which could have been very good, except that I'd forgotten to take the UV filter off the 02 zoom lens. Because of the bright indoor lighting that was often in front of the camera, I had many shots affected by ghosting. I only noticed this when I imported my photos into Lightroom. Now, I've managed to salvage most of them with a little careful editing, but a few are beyond repair.

So, whilst I'm happy with my personal preference of keeping filters on my lenses and removing them when necessary, I need to be a little more mindful in future!!

[Kerrowdown]

What do you think?

All my "Ladies" run around naked as the day they were born... but they all wear hoods to protect their modesty.

[bigdavephoto]

Dave, that's a tough position. Both of my parents live with me, but both are more-or-less as healthy as I am - at present. I've mentally prepared myself for the future, though...

I understand completely why you're protective of your equipment. There is no right or wrong with UV filters, despite the often passionate views for and, especially, against. The right choice is what works best for you - giving you a balance between IQ you're happy with, and peace of mind. I acknowledge the arguments against using them, and even agree with the basic reasoning, but I'll continue to leave mine in place some of the time, that's for sure.

I will, however, offer a tale of caution for all readers of the thread...

I went to a fantastic museum recently and took my Q7 with me. I took a lot of shots, many of which could have been very good, except that I'd forgotten to take the UV filter off the 02 zoom lens. Because of the bright indoor lighting that was often in front of the camera, I had many shots affected by ghosting. I only noticed this when I imported my photos into Lightroom. Now, I've managed to salvage most of them with a little careful editing, but a few are beyond repair.

So, whilst I'm happy with my personal preference of keeping filters on my lenses and removing them when necessary, I need to be a little more mindful in future!!

I would like to thank both you BigMackCam and MarkJerling for understanding the position I am in.


On another note, I have also had ghosting/reflections with the use of a UV / Skylight filter, but I can count on my hands the number of times it has happened.

[clackers]

Hmmm ... count me as one more a bit baffled by the idea of a UV filter as physical protection.

The lens cap is actually designed for this and is easier to put on and take off.

Hoya have made money off me for CPL and ND filters, but no other kind.

[Pentax Syntax]

As others have said it's not an easy question to answer. In ~45 years of SLR and DSLR photography I've had two occasions where a protective filter saved the lens. I've had many more where the filter kept the front elements free from corrosive salt water, dust, or dirt. Yet, I now often shoot outdoors with a Circular polarizer only. When I don't want polarization I take it off and go with just a hood. Indoors it's also bare lens no filter. I find this is a good compromise FWIW.

[Keith23]

Yes, you lose 1-2 stops of light but, unless you're in low light, that won't matter too much and a polariser will improve many photographs.

That's a good point and, for the photography I do, I should probably swap the UV for a polariser.

If you decide to strap a filter on for protection, I'd go for one that is UV versus just clear. At least that way if there is any benefit from UV, you get it.

Yes, I use a polariser (sometimes) or UV and in my environment the latter is likely to help, not that I have done any tests (but I should).

I've had many more where the filter kept the front elements free from corrosive salt water, dust, or dirt.

Also the case for me. Salt water on a windy day by the sea is a real menace.

[obsolescence]

I keep a multi-coated CPL filter on, then remove it for shots where it's either not needed or not desirable.

[clickclick]

As I read through this and keep an open mind to both positions, it seems that environmental considerations of any particular day are perhaps the most important guide to start with. If you are shooting outside with sand, water, wind etc., probably not a bad idea. If in a more controlled environment, then consider going naked. Same with awareness of lighting - be careful of the situations prone to flare and ghosting. Just like anything, a little thought goes a long way.

[BrianR]

The lens cap is actually designed for this and is easier to put on and take off.

I've found leaving the lens cap on while I'm shooting isn't an issue with today's high-iso cameras and a powerful enough flash.

Seriously though, I'm pretty obsessive about keeping a lens cap on when not actively shooting and don't generally bother with protection filters. I've often wondered if the filter users worried about random accidents behave the same way and double up on the safety?