Bike guy Loc: Atlanta

I know I read somewhere about not needing to have a skylight/uv filter on a lens other than for protecting the lens.
All of my lenses are 52mm and I do have UV filters on them. I also have a couple of polarizing filters and ND for that size.
I just got my 18-105mm yesterday, I think it uses a 67mm? filter. I forgot to look.
So question, should I use a filter, or use the hood. Any preferences?

I have not noticed differences in my other lenses, inclduing the 55-200 with or sans the filter.
Thanks

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Hotly discussed topic -

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search.jsp?q=uv+filter&u=&s=0

In my opinion, "protection" filters are a myth perpetuated by camera store salespeople to bring in the extra bucks with the sale of a lens or camera.

I can see a filter being used in a bad environment, like blowing sand or dirt, but to protect the lens against an impact - use a hood ;)

It really ends up a personal choice. I noticed a big improvement to image quality after removing my UV filters, and shoot without UV filters on any lens now.


BUT for effects I have step up rings on all my lenses so I can use one size filter for special effects like an ND or starburst.

Greenguy33 Loc: Rhode Island

:thumbup:

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Donald has it right - the "protective filter" myth was perpetrated by camera retailers who saw relatively huge profit margins on filters and accessories and very small profits on the much costlier camera gear. So unless you're in a windstorm or sea spray is washing into your face they are of no real value.

Lens hoods not only protect from front impact (possibly giving their lives so the lens may live, so to speak), but also are of great value in reducing flare when the light source is anywhere but right behind you. Meanwhile, another flat pane of glass in front of the lens can actually add to the flare issue - and flare is not necessarily obvious but can manifest itself as a reduction of image contrast. The point is, there is never a reason not to use a lens hood (although it's claimed with the modern nano-multi-coatings their impact is reduced.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

You just haven't shot in situations that show the effects...If a filter was meant to be on at all times, then the manufacturer would supply one & include it's effects when designing the lens optical formula (Canon does this on some of their lenses, read $$$ ones)

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

I used to keep protector filters, either UV or Clear, on all my lenses. Now I'll usually use a Clear protector when I'm shooting at the beach to protect the lens glass from sand and salt spray at the few times when I don't have a CP filter on. Many will tell you that you do not need to protect from sand and salt spray, but since they're my lenses and I used my money to buy them, I choose to play it safe.

It is a good idea to always have a lens hood on your camera no matter what filter you are using. I helps keep stray light from hitting the lens, which causes flare. Adjusting a CP filter with a bayonet style lens hood is difficult. I have soft rubber screw in lens hoods that I attach to the CP filter which makes it easy to adjust.

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

All the lenses I bought have come with lens hoods, but I have gathered from postings here on the Hog, that is not all manufacturers sell their lenses with the hood included.

If you have to go buy a hood separately, may I suggest that you look to see if a hood is available with a little sliding door on the side?
I have a fairly heavy lens that came with a hood with this slider, and it makes it so easy to adjust the CP filter.

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

I have seen comments about some lenses coming without hoods as well, but like you all my lenses have come with hoods.

Sheila Loc: Arizona or New York

Most of the time I have a uv filter on my lens but take it off in some situations. I often photograph is dusty conditions and I think a filter is cheaper than replacing a lens. There are times when I use a camera "raincoat" when it isn't raining--at the beach to keep sand out of the lens.

Some of my lenses are well sealed and my cameras are as well. I guess I'm just very protective of my equipment.

There are times when a filter on the lens just won't work and only adds flare. Then I do the sensible thing and remove it and use my lens brush.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

UV filters are great, It gives me something to work on when I can't get them off.

I used to use them but have let them fall by the way side for several reasons choosing instead to use a hood. I keep spares for all my lens should on fall off some where along the way.

The reason for my switch. When you decide to start stacking filers you lose how low you can go on your MM (Halo). I.E. UV with an CP or ND filter.

Bike guy Loc: Atlanta

Thanks for all the answers. Saves me money buying new filter for this lens.
As an aside, all my lenses, Nikon/Nikkor have come with hoods. So I am well stocked with them.
Jim

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Pretty much sums it up. :thumbup:

blackest Loc: Ireland

The positive, cleaning
The muck, dust, salt, grease, finger prints (photograph a small child within arms length...) goes on the uv filter instead of your front lens element. Most of that is hard enough to scratch glass or sticky enough to make the hard stuff hard to remove. So your UV filter can be damaged by cleaning rather than your front lens element.

There is an argument that the uv filter degrades image quality, maybe some of that is because the uv filter has been getting damaged by the elements and it's time to replace the uv filter, if so then without the UV filter it would be damage to your front lens element.

Are you experienced enough? do you have a blower and know how to clean the lens properly? Learn on the uv filter, if you mess up you can replace the filter.

Most people recognize a situation where adding a filter like a cp or gnd filter may help, maybe there are times where removing a filter may help to.

Then there is the lens filter threads, being occupied by the uv filter that means dirt cannot get into the threads which means if you remove it to use a different filter the threads are clean and you reduce the chance of a stuck filter. if you leave the uv filter on and its threads get jammed then you can probably get both filters off the lens.

I don't think there is a always use or never use rule for uv filters but perhaps use a uv/clear filter when it is appropriate.

The lens hood may protect your lens when you trip but it doesn't protect your lens from the environment your in. Maybe it is worth keeping one on most of the time and carrying an empty filter case so you can take it off and put it in there if you decide to take it off for a particular set of shots, you do not want to put it in a pocket.

It's up to you, but if you consider yourself relatively inexperienced it may be worth getting one.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The trend to use a UV filter for "protection" began with a brilliant idea started by a salesman. In my more than 50 years photographing I did not put anything in front of my lens unless I knew it was a necessity and a polarizer or neutral density filter comes to mind. A dirt filter, regardless of price or quality will spoil the pictures coming out of that particular lens.
My lens protection is the lens cap. I admit I am very careful with my gear and more careful when I change lenses. A fall to the ground will always produce some damage with filter on, sunshade on or lens cap.
I have never ever used a filter for "protection."

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

You need to use a good quality filter,if you have a good lens. Don't put a cheap filter on good lens. I fell with my camera and the filter saved the lens. Also when you clean your lens you're cleaning the filter. I use a filter on my lenses.