DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I didn't realize that my statement was confined to just the members of this site nor did I realize they speak for the majority of DSLR owners. Foolish argument. Are you remotely aware of the benefits of UV filters on DSLR's? The age old protection discussion was not referenced by the OP.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I am still working to decide whether UV or haze filters are needed optically or not. But I still believe that it is easier and better to prevent 'distortion' to an image in the first place than to try to remove it later without making other inadvertent alterations to the image.

But what I do know is that glass lens elements are fragile. And the coatings on those lens elements are even more fragile. It is incredibly easy in case of accident to scratch the coating on the front of the objective lens, and that scratch is the same as a scratch in the glass. Cleaning can also result in scratches, and cleaning over time will erode the surface of the coating. A filter with good optical quality provides protection against this damage and wear even if you do not want or need the optical benefit. Of course, surface erosion over time is the same risk with a coated filter, but if it occurs, you are only out the cost of a new filter, not of a new lens or a lens repair.

In the end, each of us is free to do our own analyses and make our own choices. But in this and many other areas, we are not free to claim that our choice is the only valid one.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

If you are one of the exhaulted Photographers who can afford a Leica, you should not quibble about the cost of filters.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Frank's Highland Park Cameras! Wow. Building is still there but are listed as permanently closed.. Spent a lot of $$ there in the film days.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

There is a definite difference between needing and wanting to provide a bit of protection for lens front elements.
--Bob

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I figured at least one other person on the UHH knew the place. Oh, I have so many stories about that store and their staff. Frank was a real nut job and so were the other members of his family for the most part. Once Frank broke his leg skiing and would not stay off of it to let it heal. It was not healing correctly so he was in a lot of pain and fumbling around for a long time. The story I heard from a photo classmate of mine around 1979 at also happened to work there at the time was that Frank was so picky and paranoid that he insisted on running the cash register himself. Family and other staff members would scream and curse at one another. I swear I've seen staff there get angry and throw a camera! Though, in its day, some of the best stock and prices in the Los Angeles County area! I hear he and his family escaped the "iron curtain" on foot under gun fire! Perhaps the red army was not shooting to stop him.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

This is EXACTLY why I purchase filters in a size equal to or larger than my largest diameter lens (or the diameter of the largest lens I'm considering buying). All of my current filters are 77mm which matches my 80-400mm Nikkor lens. (Yes, I purchased the filters quite a bit before the lens). But I purchase filter adapters for each of my smaller diameter lenses taking them to the 77mm size. I also purchased ALL 77mm lens caps. This makes it so that I don't have to search the bag or whatever to make sure that I got the right lens cap, filter or whatever on the lens. Plus, I only have to purchase one (or maybe a backup) of each of my very expensive filters. Especially my circular polarizers and neutral density filters but also including a haze, etc. This distributes the cost of expensive but good filters across all of my lenses rather than having one filter for each lens. I'm sure that there is a down side to this but it is what works for me.

stevetassi

Stick with the well know filter brands and you can't go wrong. UV filters are unnecessary for digital. If you want a filter for protection, get a clear one I personally use the hood for protection.

Crombie

Hi, years ago a main stream magazine made tests using a Leica 50 Summicron with and without a Leica UV filter and the resolution loss was a almost 20%. And yes they tried additional copies of the expensive Leica UV with the same shocking results.

A filter is like adding an additional front element to your lense and if we think it's of the same optical precision and quality as say a Leica front element we're kidding ourselves. I wander what the cost would be for a Summicron front element or for that matter a Nikon, Canon 85 1.4...oh boy.

Haydon

This argument about protective lenses is as senseless as a Nikon & Canon argument. It doesn't matter what others think, what matters is what you think. Simple, you can't and won't sway people's belief systems. It's like asking a religion change :)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Where in the OP was the protective aspect introduced?

Crombie

If you're paying a premium price for a lens expecting it'll give you the sharpest possible image then it only makes sense to take some time to research what filter(s) are consistent with your expectations. I'm a retired freelancer photojournalist with 30 years experience including combat assignments and had but one front element damaged.

The published lense tests usually look for ghosting, flare, etc. and how many times have they done these tests with and without a filter. Give this a wee bit of thought as to the why.

lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania

While you may not go wrong, you can do better in the higher lines of each of the major brands. The coatings are usually superior in light transmission anti-reflection, and durability in the more expensive lines of each filter manufacturer. In CPLs the actual polarizing film used often transmits more light in the costlier lines. This applies to Hoya, B+W and others.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

For protection, I use a hood not a filter.

Crombie

I agree with ya, a hood is best.