RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

UV filters aren’t really necessary on digital cameras some do use them for front element of the lens for protection I’d rather use a lens shade on a lens for bump protection and for sun flares.

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

B+W makes different qualities of filters, same as some other manufacturers. Their XS-Pro are the highest with top quality Schott glass that's 16-layer "Nano MRC" multicoated, mounted in "slim" brass frames. F-Pro are one step down and a little less expensive, quite similar and still very good... the main difference being that they are 8-layer "MRC" multicoated and use a "standard" brass frame (rather than slim). "Slim" filters can be a little more difficult to install and remove, particularly in larger diameter sizes, but may be necessary on some of the widest lenses to avoid vignetting. Even B+W's "standard" frames are pretty low profile though (I've used them on various ultrawides over the years and never had any problem with vignetting.)

They also make even cheaper "SC" and uncoated versions... But I would recommend either the multi-coated XS-Pro or F-Pro for "general purpose" used.

B+W calls their UV filters "010".

Digital imaging doesn't actually need UV filtration. Film tended to be overly sensitive to UV light, so it was often necessary to use a filter with it. But digital has built in UV filtration.

As to whether you need a filter for "protection", well there are two schools of thought. Lenses are a whole lot tougher than people think. And a thin piece of glass really doesn't provide much physical protection.

That said, I have UV filters... many of them B+W... to fit all my lenses (at least, for the lenses that can be fitted with filters). They're stored separately in my camera bag until actually needed. I DO NOT leave a "protection" filter on my lens all the time. I use the lens CAP and lens HOOD for protection, in most situations. But occasionally I find myself shooting in situations where the filter's protection might actually serve a purpose (such as a sandstorm, etc.) and will install them then. As a result, UV filters were my lowest priority to purchase and least used filters (OFF my lenses 9.9% of the time!). After all, I'm not all that excited about going out and shooting in standstorms!

For most photographers using digital, a quality Circular Polarizer (such as B+W's XS-Pro, F-Pro, or MRC... which tend to be the least expensive of the highest quality C-Pol) is FAR MORE USEFUL type of filter and much better use of their money. A C-Pol can do things for images that are difficult or impossible to replicated with software. I use C-Pol far, far more often than I use UV filters. (But C-Pol ALSO cannot and should not be left on lenses all the time.)

Another more useful, but quite a bit more specialized type of filter is a Neutral Density... Still photography usually only needs one or two relatively strong ones (say a 3-stop and a 6-stop, which can be combined for 9 stops). ND can also do things for images that cannot be produced in software. They make possible special effects with slow shutter speeds and/or larger apertures in images... to capture motion blur effect or render extra shallow depth of field in images. I only have them in limited sizes (for one or two specific lenses) and use ND filters very rarely, but still more often than I do UV filters. (I am NOT talking about Graduated ND filters.... I stopped using those some years ago, since now shooting everything digital there are much better ways with software and post-processing techniques to accomplish the same purpose they served.)

If your primary reason for purchasing a filter is "protection", you will get a lot of opinions both ways... Some folks will tell you "a filter saved their lens", though they cannot actually prove it (I can show you bent, dented, scarred and broken lens CAPS and HOODS though... I've also seen lenses that appeared to have been damaged by broken filters). It would take some serious, organized testing to say if a filter really helped, such as abusing 10,000 lenses 100 different ways, half with filters installed, half without, then looking at how the results work out, on average. Anything less is just anecdotal, not scientific.. but no one is going to destroy 10,000 lenses just to prove a point! But someone has, in fact, done a bit of "real world" testing of the protective qualities of filters and you can see for yourself, then decide if a UV filter is good use of your money....

Watch this video and cringe at the destruction (hint: in at least one case, a sheet of PAPER held up better than the filter!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

PeterBergh

Their 16-35 F4 L is a case in point.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Save your money use a lens hood

torchman310 Loc: Santa Clarita, Ca.

I have and use B + W UV filters on ALL my lenses. Better safe than sorry !

tonyi Loc: Oxford, Pennsylvania

Thank you everyone for all of the advice.

Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

While digital cameras are less sensitive to uv than film they still have some sensitivity. When shooting landscapes haze caused by uv can still affect the photograph, it may not be as big of a problem as with film. If you don't shoot a lot of landscapes you may decide one is not necessary, I would suggest landscapes of mountains would benefit from the use of a uv filter.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

For digital use, a B&W clear is best. I use filters on all compatible lenses. Best of luck.

timcc Loc: Virginia

High quality UV and clear filters, such as B&W, will help protect your lenses from the elements (sand, dust, salt water spray, snow, rain, etc.), but do not offer much protection if the camera is dropped or bumped against something hard. A hood is much better protection in the latter case. That said, I keep a clear filter on my lenses almost all the time, and if you keep them clean (like others, I'd rather clean a filter than a lens), you probably will not notice any loss in image quality.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

DON'T BUY ANY UV FILTER!!! You should never use a filter unless there is a photographic/artistic reason to do so. The best protection for your lens is a lens hood. A lens hood will in most cases adequately protect the front element of your lens while blocking stray sidelite that can reduce the contrast of your picture and cause flare. You should always use a lens hood unless there is a specific reason you cannot use one.

The myth that it is necessary to use a UV filter to protect your lens is just that; a myth. Filters are high profit items for sellers and are promoted as a way to protect the front element of your lens. In fact, the profit in dollars for a UV filter can be as much or more than the profit on the lens.

UV filters have there place in color FILM photography where they act to attenuate the blue cast that can be the result of the spectral sensitivity of the film which can extend to frequencies beyond those of the human eye. Digital cameras do not have that problem, so a UV filter is never needed for photographic purposes.

Save your money. If you want a filter that will provide a real benefit, buy a B+W circular polarizer (CPL).

repleo Loc: Boston

Anybody who thinks that a lens cover or a hood is going to 'protect' their lens from a drop or fall is fooling themselves. The only thing that will protect a lens from a drop on concrete, rocks or other hard surfaces is fate and luck.

However, a filter can help protect the lens element from dust, sand, spray, finger prints, dog saliva, bird poop, spit, flying twigs and a host of other less dramatic maladies. I would rather clean a lens filter ten times than a pricey coated lens once.