lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

This has been covered endless times. Do a bit of searching.

OK, my take; if you are talking about a physically long tele or zoom lens where the glass is set set back well from the front of the lens housing or a hood housing, no need for a UV, 1A, 1B, or blank glass filter for protection. If you mean a normal, wide angle, or short tele where holding it you might touch a finger or other object to the front element, then put a filter on for protection. In windy, dusty, sandy locations, a filter might be a good idea for any lens. In all cases I buy only high quality filters these day for any use. Some people often leave CPL filters on at all times. But I have my own multitude of reasons for not really using CPL / PL filter much. But that is a different story and argument. Now watch, you'll get 5 pages of the same old...

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

That will be the next question.

Canon vs Nikon? DSLR vs Mirrorless? Anyone? (My view cameras are mirrorless, and meterless.)

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

BOTH

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Both

(Download)

ole sarg Loc: south florida

You nailed it!

gwilliams6

Sorry a long lens offers no less risk from flying debris entering and shattering your lens. All lens need the protection of a clear or UV filter. I am talking from four decades of professional experience all over the world in varying conditions. Trust me it can happen to you without the filter protection if you chance it. Also harmful liquids splashed onto your lens element can ruined its fancy coatings. Having a deeper front element is no protection against splashing liquid. Don't be penny-wise and pound foolish and risk it, I don't ever, and boy am I glad I had the protection on many occasions.Cheers

speakdolphin

I do not use a UV filter because my experience is that digital cameras do not need them. I use an optical grade clear filter for protection. A little more expensive but that my thoughts. I always use a lens hood.

gwilliams6

Either a UV or clear filter offers the same protection for your lens. Even with digital cameras a UV filter (in certain lighting conditions) allows less blue cast to reach your image sensor, meaning less correction needed in post. Yes if you shoot jpegs only, your camera will do some of this color correction for you, based on internal image processor algorithms . I shoot both raw and jpeg always. Raw will capture all image data without algorithm processing , so you would need to correct any color issues in post.

Last fall I spent three weeks photographing in the Scottish Highlands and Hebrides Island in sometimes extreme atmospheric weather and rapidly changing lighting conditions. I was happy to have the UV filter on my lens, especially the wide angle lens. Cheers

Snoopypood

I guess it depends upon how careful or careless you are. I ALWAYS use a hard lens hood - those specifically designed by Canon for each of their lenses are ideal. I am sure other manufactures have similar products. These hoods not only help with lens flare but protect the front of the lens from inadvertent bumps. My thought is that if Canon wanted to add a $10 piece of flat glass to the front of their lens - the lens designs that probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in R&D - they would have done so. It makes me cringe whenever I go some place like zoos and museums and see cameras on the dining tables with fingerprints, baby spit and pizza grease on a glass filter. I will use filters for specific purposes - polarizers and sometimes UV filters. UV filters are my filter of choice if I am shooting in inclement weather where rain, blowing snow or debris such as sand is blowing around. Other than that, the designed front glass is what is closest to the subject. The best protection is be careful. If you are going to be climbing a rock or something, at least put the lens cap on the lens or pack it in your backpack.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Filter is enough. A bashed lens hood could compromise the screw mount.

tomad Loc: North Carolina

I use both, but after reading a recent thread on here that showed a night time photo with and without a UV filter I changed my protective filter to a high quality clear protective one instead of UV which evidently can have a negative effect on digital photos. UV is a holdover from film days and is rarely, if ever, needed in digital.

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

I'm on Social Security and I can't afford new lenses. I use both!

Snoopypood

Refer to my comment about careful/careless. If by screw mount you are referring to the filter threads, top lens hoods by camera manufacturers do not screw hoods into filter threads.

Snoopypood

I guess I missed the part of my comment where I said anything about night. I don't use filters at night. If you are shooting in inclement weather, it is likely overcast and the color temperature is well into the 7000 - 8000 degree range. The UV filter compensates for this in either film or digital.

TechLauren Loc: SW AZ

I use the hoods that came with my lenses. I bought the best lenses I could for their sharpness. Not putting a filter on them no matter how good or optical it is. I can add blurriness post but I can never get the sharpness back. I would rather chance buying a new lens than shoot for years with some filter on!