[Keith23]

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?

I have a few lenses where the lens cap simply does not stay on securely and will often fall off in the camera bag. If there is something else in the bag (and there often is), that's a problem. So it's filter and lens cap.

On one occasion recently, I took a tumble on a rocky hill (actually, a sloping rough concrete wall) with my camera in my hand. The result could have been nasty for the camera (it was a little nasty for me but only scratches and bruises). And, yes, I was not being as careful as I should have been.

[clackers]

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?

Yeah, walking through crowds I have the cap and hood on just in case of a random knock or drop.

The cap comes off quickly and into the pocket when taking a shot (lest it be lost) and back on again when leaving the scene.

I paid for this already, not sure why I'd go and fork out for a $19 bit of delicate glass to put in the light path of an $800 lens.

[BigMackCam]

Yeah, walking through crowds I have the cap and hood on just in case of a random knock or drop.

The cap comes off quickly and into the pocket when taking a shot (lest it be lost) and back on again when leaving the scene.

I paid for this already, not sure why I'd go and fork out for a $19 bit of delicate glass to put in the light path of an $800 lens.

That's a very fair and reasonable stance. However...

What if it was a $100 piece of very-high-quality, fully-coated glass - would that be acceptable?

If you answer "no", and it's the general principle of putting any piece of glass in front of the lens that's contentious, then where does that leave us when we need an ND or CPL filter for an important shot? Both of these carry at least the same risk of image softening, reflections and skewed colour reproduction. And Heaven help us if we should ever have to shoot a scene through a window (I'm being facetious, but you take my point, I'm sure ).

If you answer "yes", then we're saying it's the quality of the glass going in front of a lens that's the issue - and I'm completely on board with that. But good filter glass doesn't have to be costly.

It seems to me that with any filter we have to be clear on our reasons for using it, and judge whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. That's going to be a pretty subjective decision for each of us.

What I'd guess we can all agree on is that we shouldn't just slap a UV filter on a lens because a dealer tells us we should at the point of sale ("Oh, and you'll want one of these... That'll be $19, thank you!")

[clackers]

That's a very fair and reasonable stance. However...

What if it was a $100 piece of very-high-quality, fully-coated glass - would that be acceptable?

If you answer "no", and it's the general principle of putting any piece of glass in front of the lens that's contentious, then where does that leave us when we need an ND or CPL filter for an important shot? Both of these carry at least the same risk of image softening, reflections and skewed colour reproduction. And Heaven help us if we should ever have to shoot a scene through a window (I'm being facetious, but you take my point, I'm sure D

I use both those kinds of filters, Mike, and there's no way they'll do what I put them on the lens for and at the same time increase sharpness or contrast or reduce artifacts, there's only one way - down.

I also use a 1.4 WR TC with HD coatings that cost me $600 but again, same story.

They're the trade-offs I accept to zoom closer, get more saturation or shoot longer exposures in bright light. I take them off when the situation doesn't call for them.

But the UV filter isn't making the digital sensor less affected by UV light, and it doesn't protect the front element like a $5 generic lens cap from eBay does. It does fly a satisfying distance if you fling it with a snap of the wrist towards the dumpmaster, you should try it!

[BigMackCam]

But the UV filter isn't making the digital sensor less affected by UV light, and it doesn't protect the front element like a $5 generic lens cap from eBay does. It does fly a satisfying distance if you fling it with a snap of the wrist towards the dumpmaster, you should try it!

I wish you'd get off the fence and decide how you really feel...

[nicolpa47]

I have a small number of special effects filters as a legacy from my interest in photography in the 1970s and 1980s. I also used to use UV and PL filters, and that has carried over into my revitalised interest. The CPL filters are for their photographic effect, but the UV filters are just to protect the lenses as I spend a lot of time taking photos on the beach/close to the sea. Certainly, I've had to throw away the occasional filter apparently affected by the salt water. I'd rather that than have to do the same with a lens.

Colin

I leave the lens hood on all the time. Protects the element. I have had good luck with microfiber clothes, a dust blower, and just fogging the front element with my breath and wiping it clean. So far, I have not noticed an issue, and let's face it, thats how we clean our polycarbonate eyeglasses, and they don't end up getting scratched. The shrapnel from a broken filter can damage the front element anyway. So far so good

[BigMackCam]

So far, I have not noticed an issue, and let's face it, thats how we clean our polycarbonate eyeglasses, and they don't end up getting scratched.

Whilst generally I'd agree with you, both my current and previous glasses have got scratched. Not badly, and it's probably just the coatings, but in the right light I can see the marks...

[gtxSeries]

My suggestion: forget the crappy UV filters, get a metal or plastic lens hood for ALL your lenses. The proper shape for each of them. Forget the clip-on and rubber ones! Get ones that will firmly sit on your lens. That way, if you drop your camera by accident, it can be the difference between life and death. I just recently dropped my K10D with a 18-55 kit lens and it was only thanks to the lens hood, that only the hood got damaged!

On the other hand, UV filters WILL degrade image quality and introduce additional flaring. Especially cheap ones! There's also the fact that SMC coatings better repel dust and moisture than cheap UV glass. Cheers!

[newmikey]

I have one single standard for deciding whether or not to use filters and under which circumstance I use them: does the filter serve any distinctive photographic purpose at the moment of shooting or not?

So, the use of a UV or clear protection filter as a standard is a big no to me. Unless a gritty environment, (ocean)spray or blowing dust forces me to use them I won't and if I do at all, they come off as soon as the environmental situation is no longer relevant. ND filters to either slow down shutter speeds for long exposures or to allow using shallow DOF in very bright circumstances. Polarizers to cut down on reflections, increase color saturation or emphasize white clouds against blue skies.

Other than that, the lenshood and lenscaps take care of all the lens protection and flare reduction I need.

[promacjoe]

As far as a lens caps goes, their great, and I use them whenever possible. But when I'm actively looking for wildlife, or shooting kids, sporting events or a air show, The lens cap goes in my pocket. The second or two that it takes to remove that cap, Can mean the difference between getting the shot that you want, or missing it entirely. And yes I use lens hoods as well. And so does my brother and his wife. But that did not stop that hundred dollar plus polarizer from getting damaged. But the $2000 plus lens was not damaged. Do I expect the filter to protect my lens from a catastrophic event such as a rock hitting it , No. And the lens hood will not protect it either. The lens hood can protect your camera, But in a different manner. It's like the bumper on your car and the windshield. They are both designed to help protect you. But they do it in different ways. the trick is, knowing when to use a filter, and knowing when not to use them. it's your equipment, you can use it however you wish. But I have 40+-year-old lenses that are in pristine condition, simply because I have tried my best to protect them. and I have taken a lot of pictures over the years.

[MarkJerling]

As far as a lens caps goes, their great, and I use them whenever possible. But when I'm actively looking for wildlife, or shooting kids, sporting events or a air show, The lens cap goes in my pocket. The second or two that it takes to remove that cap, Can mean the difference between getting the shot that you want, or missing it entirely. And yes I use lens hoods as well. And so does my brother and his wife. But that did not stop that hundred dollar plus polarizer from getting damaged. But the $2000 plus lens was not damaged. Do I expect the filter to protect my lens from a catastrophic event such as a rock hitting it , No. And the lens hood will not protect it either. The lens hood can protect your camera, But in a different manner. It's like the bumper on your car and the windshield. They are both designed to help protect you. But they do it in different ways. the trick is, knowing when to use a filter, and knowing when not to use them. it's your equipment, you can use it however you wish. But I have 40+-year-old lenses that are in pristine condition, simply because I have tried my best to protect them. and I have taken a lot of pictures over the years.

I could not have said it better myself.

[BigMackCam]

I could not have said it better myself.

You beat me to it, Mark

the trick is, knowing when to use a filter, and knowing when not to use them. it's your equipment, you can use it however you wish.

Well said. There is no right and wrong in the matter - only personal choice. So long as that choice is well-informed, it's all good