Originally posted by clackers 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!")