Do you shoot with a filter (Page 3): I don't quite agree with the statement "no deterioration ...". I have a Nikon CL UV (very good, imho), B&W and Heliopan UV filters and had always...

AlanK Loc: No. Califorina

brianclark4 wrote:

I think thats a bad choice, as has been pointed out Its cheeper to replace the UV then the lens and there is no deterioration when using a UV filter.

I don't quite agree with the statement "no deterioration ...".
I have a Nikon CL UV (very good, imho), B&W and Heliopan UV filters and had always kept a filter on my lenses, UNTIL this last weekend! I have a D800 and my "walk around" lens is the Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8 but I've been really frustrated with "un-sharp" images from the d800!

I finally tested 2 of my lenses, the 24-70 and the 70-200mm 2.8 VR II, against each other, with and without UV filters. I shot a test chart from 9 ft at most stops, when I viewed them NONE of the shots were "crisp" from the 24-70mm, but the 70-200 was "tack sharp", even at 2.8!!

I removed the expensive B&W UV from the 24-70 and the image just "jumped" off the screen, crisp & sharp!

I won't shoot with a UV filter anymore! Alan

PAO Loc: Lewiston NY

Generally speaking, It's counter productive to place a $10 piece of glass in front of a $2000 lens...just an opinion

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Elmosal wrote:

I was wanting to know if you leave the filter on you lens when taking photographs & if so which filter. I understand there are many different filters available & it may depend what you are shooting. Any & all input will greatly appreciated.

You will receive a myriad of opinions regarding this issue. In all the years that I have been a photographer I have never used a filter except for an occasional polarizer or a color filter for special effects or an IR filter when I want to do Infra Red photography. I have never scratched a lens and I have never damaged a lens because I make it a point to be careful. When I am at the beach I keep a lens cap on my lens up until I shoot. I never use UV filters, I think that they are a waste. All that a UV filter does is put a barrier between the lens and the subject and it takes money out of your pocket. I will probably have people responding to me as if I am the devil but I have had probably 60 lenses of all types from 35mm-4x5 camera lenses and they are just as clean as the day I bought them. I do occasional macro photography and I have never had problems with getting anything on my lens. The decision is yours to make. Being careful is 100 percent of keeping your lens from any damage. About a year ago I had a backpack failure, the zipper gave out, and all of my camera gear landed on the street smashing my 24-70 2.8 lens, bashing in my 105 macro, bashing in my camera and other damage. My 24-70 lens was broken in half. You would think with all of the damage done that the glass of the lenses would be affected but I was totally amazed with the damage done the glass of the lenses was untouched. By the way all of my lenses had the lens cap on.The repairs to the equipment, payed for by the manufacturer of the backpack by the way, consisted of repairing the lens barrels and outer parts but the glass was just fine. You would think that with the amount of damage done would include scratched lenses but that was not the case. After the equipment fell all of the lens caps remained on all of the lenses.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

PAO wrote:

Generally speaking, It's counter productive to place a $10 piece of glass in front of a $2000 lens...just an opinion

That's why I went all out and bought a $53 filter.
Hoya 77mm Super HMC Haze UV(0) Filter

Elmosal Loc: Austin Tx

thanks everyone for all of the feedback. This really helps & more than that. IT MAKES SENSE!! again thx

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Elmosal wrote:

I was wanting to know if you leave the filter on you lens when taking photographs & if so which filter. I understand there are many different filters available & it may depend what you are shooting. Any & all input will greatly appreciated.

Like many others I keep UV filters on all my lenses just to protect the front elements of those lenses. From what I've noted this filter has little or no effect on the result.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

RocketScientist wrote:

After reading this thread, I'm starting to go without the UV filters.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-85022-1.html

:thumbup: :thumbup:

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

silver wrote:

Elmosal wrote:

I was wanting to know if you leave the filter on you lens when taking photographs & if so which filter. I understand there are many different filters available & it may depend what you are shooting. Any & all input will greatly appreciated.

You will receive a myriad of opinions regarding this issue. In all the years that I have been a photographer I have never used a filter except for an occasional polarizer or a color filter for special effects or an IR filter when I want to do Infra Red photography. I have never scratched a lens and I have never damaged a lens because I make it a point to be careful. When I am at the beach I keep a lens cap on my lens up until I shoot. I never use UV filters, I think that they are a waste. All that a UV filter does is put a barrier between the lens and the subject and it takes money out of your pocket. I will probably have people responding to me as if I am the devil but I have had probably 60 lenses of all types from 35mm-4x5 camera lenses and they are just as clean as the day I bought them. I do occasional macro photography and I have never had problems with getting anything on my lens. The decision is yours to make. Being careful is 100 percent of keeping your lens from any damage. About a year ago I had a backpack failure, the zipper gave out, and all of my camera gear landed on the street smashing my 24-70 2.8 lens, bashing in my 105 macro, bashing in my camera and other damage. My 24-70 lens was broken in half. You would think with all of the damage done that the glass of the lenses would be affected but I was totally amazed with the damage done the glass of the lenses was untouched. By the way all of my lenses had the lens cap on.The repairs to the equipment, payed for by the manufacturer of the backpack by the way, consisted of repairing the lens barrels and outer parts but the glass was just fine. You would think that with the amount of damage done would include scratched lenses but that was not the case. After the equipment fell all of the lens caps remained on all of the lenses.

quote=Elmosal I was wanting to know if you leave ... (show quote)

Yep. Totally agree. You are the devil! :-) <joke> Good post.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

mdorn wrote:

silver wrote:

Elmosal wrote:

I was wanting to know if you leave the filter on you lens when taking photographs & if so which filter. I understand there are many different filters available & it may depend what you are shooting. Any & all input will greatly appreciated.

You will receive a myriad of opinions regarding this issue. In all the years that I have been a photographer I have never used a filter except for an occasional polarizer or a color filter for special effects or an IR filter when I want to do Infra Red photography. I have never scratched a lens and I have never damaged a lens because I make it a point to be careful. When I am at the beach I keep a lens cap on my lens up until I shoot. I never use UV filters, I think that they are a waste. All that a UV filter does is put a barrier between the lens and the subject and it takes money out of your pocket. I will probably have people responding to me as if I am the devil but I have had probably 60 lenses of all types from 35mm-4x5 camera lenses and they are just as clean as the day I bought them. I do occasional macro photography and I have never had problems with getting anything on my lens. The decision is yours to make. Being careful is 100 percent of keeping your lens from any damage. About a year ago I had a backpack failure, the zipper gave out, and all of my camera gear landed on the street smashing my 24-70 2.8 lens, bashing in my 105 macro, bashing in my camera and other damage. My 24-70 lens was broken in half. You would think with all of the damage done that the glass of the lenses would be affected but I was totally amazed with the damage done the glass of the lenses was untouched. By the way all of my lenses had the lens cap on.The repairs to the equipment, payed for by the manufacturer of the backpack by the way, consisted of repairing the lens barrels and outer parts but the glass was just fine. You would think that with the amount of damage done would include scratched lenses but that was not the case. After the equipment fell all of the lens caps remained on all of the lenses.

quote=Elmosal I was wanting to know if you leave ... (show quote)

Yep. Totally agree. You are the devil! :-) <joke> Good post.

quote=silver quote=Elmosal I was wanting to know... (show quote)

Hey, be careful or Ill stab you with my pitchfork. By the way the points on my pitchfork are made of sharpened UV filters. HA.

Daryl New Loc: Wellington,New Zealand

edgorm wrote:

I agree with photomajor. A uv filter should always be there. Cheaper to buy a new filter than to replace a scratched lens. The only other filters I use on a regular basis are a polarizer and a neutral density filter.

All our lenses have UV filters on permanently.Reasons as above.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

silver wrote:

Hey, be careful or Ill stab you with my pitchfork. By the way the points on my pitchfork are made of sharpened UV filters. HA.

LOL! That's an expensive pitchfork! :-)

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

edgorm wrote:

I agree with photomajor. A uv filter should always be there. Cheaper to buy a new filter than to replace a scratched lens. The only other filters I use on a regular basis are a polarizer and a neutral density filter.

Same here.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Mac wrote:

edgorm wrote:

I agree with photomajor. A uv filter should always be there. Cheaper to buy a new filter than to replace a scratched lens. The only other filters I use on a regular basis are a polarizer and a neutral density filter.

Same here.

Just curious. Are you using a UV filter in lieu of insurance? If you have insurance, do they give you a discount for "wearing" a UV on your lenses? My gear is covered under my household insurance. It cost pennies (relatively speaking) and covers any kind of damage---not just a scratch on the lens. I understand that a UV filter provides a certain amount of peace of mind, but is it really protecting your investment? Of course, only you know this. Best.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Just follow what MT Shooter has to say, as do I pretty much the same way that he does, you can't go wrong.

wolfman

RichardSM wrote:

Just follow what MT Shooter has to say, as do I pretty much the same way that he does, you can't go wrong.

I tend to agree with Richard. I'm putting a Nikon clear filter on my new lens, if nothing else just to keep the dust off and limit cleaning.