Novots Loc: Grand Forks, ND

I only use 2 filters - one is to never swear in public and the second to never be critical of a meal my wife makes! 😀

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I use UV, circular polarizer, and a neutral density filter. First for protection of lens, second to enhance contrast/ cut down reflections , and third for long exposures.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Yes, you must have read about this before on the UHH. It gets asked nearly daily (sigh). That being said, digital cameras are not really affected by UV or IR light as to affecting White Balance because the non-visible light is partially blocked by filters directly covering the sensor. These can be removed on purpose to make converted IR and/or UV Cameras.

I use pretty much only German optical glass B+W and Heliopan or a few other high grade UV, 1A, 1B, or Blank filters for protection. Many of my lenses, primes of 19mm to 135mm have from glass elements very close to the front flange of the lens barrel. So one can easily get dirty fingers on the glass surface. For most longer telephoto and zoom lenses a lens hood can provide mechanical protection as well as light shade. But even most if not all of mine when the hood is off are just as susceptible. I don't have any monster lenses with build-on deep hoods. Also the hoods for short wide angle prime lenses are not deep obviously. Not everyone shoots BIFs with huge long Tele-zooms with two-foot deep lens hoods.

Many people find polarizers actually useful for many types of shots. Here again only the highest quality ones should be used. Personally I don't use CPLs much and don't think the ones I have are all that great. Creating blue blocked up shadow areas with lost shadow detail. They can provide similar mechanical protection as well but actually optically do something, so do ND filters. Being from a B&W Zone system background I demand good shadow detail in my images and prints. Be it B&W or Color.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

UV filters are useless for protection. I have seen many a lens barrels dented beyond the filter. The only TRUE protection is the lens hood. I have been a professional photographer for over 35 years and I have dropped my share of lenses. All had hoods and NO DAMAGE.
As for the usefulness of a UV filter, they have no usefulness.
A polarizer is a nice filter to have. You can get a decent one from Tiffen.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=tiffen%20circular%20polarizer&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps

CWGordon

I was amused by many of the responses here. This forum often is not what you would call a Support Group. That said, much of what they say is what I have found. Even a good quality filter is one more piece of glass between subject and sensor. I have seen little value in them and rarely use them. I have heard of using them for lens protection, but fear degradation of image more than the very slight risk of damaging my lenses. I wonder whether there is not a substantial risk of a broken filter scratching my lens?
Nonetheless, Polarizers have their place, can cut some haze, do amazing things with water, and can darken skies. I only use circular high quality ones. There are numerous high quality brands. Price will let you know which are good. I am a sucker for the German made brands. A holdover, for me, apparently from film days when I had a goodly number of filters. I agree with the use of lens hoods. However, I rarely use them. They never seem to want to fit into a travel case or bag. I always seem to get around their use. However, the guys that use them are right. You should use them.
Good luck with your choices and take nothing personal that our warm and fuzzy folks contribute. A sense of humor is always valuable. Even more than a good filter.

Collhar Loc: New York City.

"This forum often is not what you would call a Support Group." Being new here I think you may be partially right. There are some who offer help and great suggestions Then there are some here who think they have to demean and belittle people. They seem to be under the impression if they say it's so, it must be so. Perhaps they have no sense of "self: they are insecure and perhaps suffered from being bullied when younger. Now through this impersonal media they can now be the bully. I was under the impression that this type of filter was used to protect the glass on the lens. Who knew you would be ridiculed if you used it or thought differently.

CWGordon

You are a fast learner, my friend.
It can be a tough group at times. I think most mean well, but prefer less tact in their responses. There are generally more good guys and helpful responses than the other!

Collhar Loc: New York City.

You are a very angry person. I would hate to spend my time being as angry and sad as you. It would appear you always see the glass a half empty.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

On a modern digital camera a UV filter serves no useful purpose other then keeping your front element clean and possibly providing a bit of protection from a direct blow to the front element. But, very inexpensive ones can also impact the image quality negatively. If you are not concerned with using it for whatever amount of protection it may provide, there is little need to put it on your lens.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

That about sums it up;

Cookie223 Loc: New Jersey

I'm not at the level that many members here are, but I use UV filters and don't notice any difference in my pictures. You'll get those that say the UV's are not needed, and those that use them. At the end of the day it's up to you. If you do want to go with any type of filter, go with a good quality one. I use only B&W filters, but they're are others that are very good too.

Good luck.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Not trying to start an argument or talk you out of using a filter, but how could you be sure it actually saved your lens? Lens front elements can be destroyed if there is enough force at the right spot, even with a filter present, and many front elements not protected by filters have survived significant impacts without a mark. Front elements are much stronger than any filter. Whether there is damage or not often depends on the amount of force and exact point of impact of the blow on the lens. I think the main protection a thin glass filter might provide would be to the filter threads themselves which would be less likely to be damaged if a filter is mounted.

Before you think I'm just a filter naysayer, I actually use Sigma ceramic protection filters on some of my lenses regularly. Tests have shown they absorb impact energy and are many times less likely to crack or shatter than any hardened glass filters. But I'm still not certain they would actually protect my front elements from destruction. However, they are useful in blowing sand and keep my front elements cleaner.

ggab Loc: ?

I only have 1 filter, never be critical of a meal my wife makes!

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

My thoughts. When shooting raw you do not need a UV filter. Most post processing programs will fix the issue if haze exists. If you bought a good to excellent (expensive) lens I would suggest that the free filter is not optically clear or flat and will degrade the good lens. I find that if I want sharp photos I get better results without the extra glass in front.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

It might if I met you in person !
Is it insulting to give suggestions and instructions when it will be useful to them? I did not "insult"... rather instructed regarding that which may be helpful. John, have you used search regarding filters? Lots there... and also many of UHH people opine vs actual factual information. That is a true statement. For those without good basis opinionated UHH [not just UHH] people... they say things such as cost is an indication of "betterness" which by scientific testing it is not. For them "To Opine is Devine."