lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Actually that filter IS providing protection.
It has been PROVEN on here many many many times.
You are just spouting personal RHETORIC.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Again, you should avoid being personal in your posts. It really isn't civil. :(

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

And neither is it civil to SHOUT, and DENY FACTS and DATA because you are too scared that it will NOT agree with your RANTS.

Arizona Pete Loc: Mesa,Az.

Let's all go to a post assessing the pros and cons of moon jump. We've all heard of the cow jumping over the moon. That picture clearly shoes a moon jumping a cow. My question is how did a simple question devolve into hatfield an Mcoys? Let's help this guy going to Alaska, not leave him thinking " I ain't ever askin another question...Who got time for that?

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

lighthouse: You are absolutely correct regarding the change in exposure in the first vs. the second shots. At the time it was not my intent to take pictures to illustrate anything for the "UV Filter Wars" thread. I just chimped the first shot and asked my self, 'OK, what do I need to change here?" My answer was remove the filter and change the exposure. To give a true comparison I should have changed only one variable; i.e., in this case just remove the filter. However, the effect was sufficiently startling that I took subsequent shots that night without the use of the filter. I have quality filters on my lenses, but if I am trying to take the very best shot possible, I remove both the lens cap AND the filter. BTW the night of the moon shot I discovered that it is much easier to acquire the moon's image in the viewfinder if you do indeed remove the lens cap. Best of luck and good shooting.

Arizona Pete Loc: Mesa,Az.

Excellent illustration for not using uv filter.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

It certainly demonstrates the fact that filters DO degrade image quality.

Depending on the situation, that degradation may be anywhere from hardly visible to disastrous like the example above.

In any event, adding extra glass in the light path DOES increase refraction and diffraction, which in turn, decrease contrast and degrade image quality. And the trade-off of increased protection is non-existent, because anything truly capable of damaging the front element of even the CHEAPEST lens... WILL NOT BE STOPPED BY THE THIN, CHEAP GLASS OF A FILTER. ;)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Why do you keep spouting this BS???
Because YOU have already BEEN PROVEN WRONG on both counts.
I've lost count of the amount of people on here who have detailed that they have had lenses saved by the sacrificial filter.
And that is without considering the years of cleaning that also damages the front element.
So obviously you are wrong about the filter not saving lenses.

And secondly there are two comparison tests in this thread and there is the independent test reported that has been linked to several times and you totally ignore those results that PROVE NO VISIBLE DEGRADATION.
You profess to be a scientist and you won't even acknowledge or participate in a true blind test because you don't know which is filtered and which is unfiltered.???????

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

You should REALLY take your own advice to heart... :(

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

ah, yes, however Gautama also stated:
"you know yourself through the eyes of others".

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I am totally at peace with myself CHOLLY.

And still you will not look at the data presented and have an opinion on it.

Madman Loc: Gulf Coast, Florida USA

I think it is time to put this to rest. Both sides have some pros and some cons.

Use a filter if you want to,or don't if not.

Isn't it obvious that neither side is going to be convinced by the other?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I have never used a UV filter, but I do believe it would offer some protection, even with a lens hood and lens cap (I have never damaged a lens in a way that the filter would have prevented though). I also have no strong feelings about whether it would degrade my image quality. I just don't want to pay for one for all my lenses - I can think of better things to spend my equipment money on.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

we'd probably disagree, here. i've many thousands of dollars invested in cameras and lenses. to be clear, i only use film. i've filters for all my lenses, including haze, polarising, red, green and yellow. other than the haze filters which live permanently on my lenses, i've tried to match my lenses for the same size filters, so i don't have to duplicate. often a step up or down ring can also be of service.
while lens protection is always a good idea, and everyone else has already commented on it, a good haze filter, for instance will leave you with "sharper" images, as it can alleviate, to some degree, all the garbage in the air, which we never see, but the lens sees it.
so, anyway, good luck with your image making.
cody

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

I have explained my position quite clearly. :roll:

I also told you why I won't consider the "data" you are touting. ADDITIONALLY, I told you that flare/ghosting is situation dependent, and that it can range from barely visible to extremely distracting depending on numerous and variable factors.

The fact that one or two pictures APPEAR to have little to no image degradation is FAR from being either conclusive OR persuasive, and means very little when you consider all the possible photographic situations where flare and ghosting caused by extra-elemental glass WILL occur... and that is all but the most strictly controlled situations.

And contrary to what YOU might think significant data is, the hardness of filter glass compared to the hardness of lens glass; the physical barrier presented by lens hoods and caps; common sense precautions and situational awareness; proper cleaning technique and procedure; and finally, the incontrovertible laws of optics, are ALL far more important in this discussion than my or your opinions.

People who use "protective" filters DO DEGRADE THEIR IMAGE QUALITY, but they DO NOT protect their lenses any better than the measures I have constantly and consistently pointed out in this and other threads on the subject.

UV/"protective" filters are a waste of money, and for that wasted cash, you get lower quality images in the bargain. :thumbdown: