speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

The lens hood function is to protect against flare, a UV filter does not do that!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

No, I normally would not put an additional layer of glass that serves no purpose in between that lovely piece of optics and the subjects I'm photographing with it. I would always use the lens hood to protect it.

I would purchase a high quality, multi-coated 82mm UV filter and keep that on hand, not on the lens, bot be able to fit it in rare situations when "protection" might actually be needed: for example during a sand storm or similar, at the beach (salt air), shooting paint ball battles, etc. I do this now with my lenses. I have UV "protection" filters for them, but only install them when actually necessary.... which is fairly seldom.

In fact, I have a couple premium lenses that were much more expensive and are much larger than your example - 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 - neither of which are fitted with a "protective" filter (actually those lenses can't be fitted with filters... too large diameter and no threads for a filter to be attached).

As to which brand of filter...

Most of my filters are B+W MRC, F-Pro or XS-Pro... which are a good value in high quality, multi-coated filters. The MRC and F-Pro are 8-layer multi-coated, while the XS-Pro are 16-layer "Nano" multi-coated. The latter type of coatings is relatively new and a bit more resistant to scratches, oils, water, etc., and a little easier to clean.

I also use some high end, multi-coated Hoya filters. They make a wide variety of qualities and have changed the designations a number of times, so care needs to be taken when selecting Hoya. Using 82mm as an example (which is the size required for the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4), Hoya currently offers 11 different clear/UV/protect type filters ranging in price from $24 to $167.

I don't have, but if the price were reasonable I would use Nikon "II" filters too. Those are good quality. Earlier Nikon filters (not "II") are not multi-coated and I wouldn't use those outdoors. (Note exception below specific to "protection" filters.)

However, camera manufacturer branded filters tend to be over-priced for their level of quality. For example, an 82mm Canon clear "Protect" filter costs $90, is decent but unspecified quality and isn't multi-coated. Or for something truly ridiculous.... according to B&H Photo, Canon's uncoated 82mm UV filter is a special order that costs $270! Probably a decent filter (and probably outsourced from one of the filter manufacturers)... but nothing special and NOT multi-coated! That price is absurd!

Other camera makers filters aren't exactly cheap either (and may be outsourced). Fujifilm's 82mm UV is not bad at $89. And Sony offers a multi-coated, clear protector filter in 82mm size for just under $128.

In comparison, a B+W XS-Pro (top of the line) UV costs about $60 in 82mm size. They also offer XS-Pro Clear/protect filter for a few $ less.

Shop around...

You'll find a Hoya HD3 in that size costs $166! That's Hoya's top of the line, similar to but definitely no better quality than the B+W XS-Pro.

Breakthrough Photograph is a relatively new brand and their top of the line X4 costs $109 in 82mm size. It has virtually identical specs as the B+W XS-Pro, but almost double the price. Breakthrough's more affordable X2 line of filters has 8-layer coatings like B+W F-Pro and MRC, but uses lower specification glass and frame. Their X2 is $54 in 82mm size.

I haven't used them, but Formatt Hitech Firecrest Superslim also have nearly identical specs to the Breakthrough X4 and B+W XS-Pro filters... and a Firecrest Superslim UV in 82mm is on sale for about $35 (normally closer to $70).

I don't find a Nikon "II" protection filter available in 82mm size. Apparently their "protection" filters are labelled "NC" instead of "II". Their $130 82mm "NC" claims multi-coatings, but doesn't specify how many layers or anything beyond that and uses unknown glass. Probably fine, but more than double the cost of B+W's top of the line XS-Pro filter.

Heliopan offers filters almost identical in quality and specification to B+W. But their UV 82mm SH-PMC 16-layer multi-coated costs $130. But their 82mm clear "Protection" SH-PMC filter is ridiculously expensive at $210!

And Zeiss *T UV in that size is priced at $135.

More info here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&sortType=default&setIPP=72&ci=112&fct=fct_circular-sizes_27%7c82mm%2bfct_a_features_1266%7cmulti-coated&srtclk=itemspp&ipp=72&N=4026728358

In the end, it's pretty hard to beat the value of B+W's multi-coated filters.... the older MRC or the newer F-Pro and XS-Pro series.

But also have realistic expectations for any protection filter.... A thin piece of glass does very little in the way of protection and even very good filters might do more harm than good in some situations. There are lots of opinions out there about whether to use a UV/protection filter or not, but very few people actually perform any tests. After all, you essentially have to destroy a bunch of lenses and filters to test the theories. So most folks just defend their position, which ever side they come down on. However, someone actually has done some testing and Steve's video might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds

Polock

get yourself a cheap filter or better yet a used filter with a real name, and devote a day to testing, on/off in all sorts of situations
now you know

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

Tony Northrop did a YouTube video awhile ago where he took several shots with no filter, then literally took a sharp object and pounded on the front of the lens glass, creating lots of scratches and marks. He then took more pictures with the damaged lens front glass ... and you couldn’t tell the difference.

I’ve often wondered why when I’m taking photos through a scratchy window on a plane, the pictures come out fine. I guess everything resolves fine? The point Tony was making was if you’re worried about getting scratches on your front glass and they will ruin your photos, they won’t.
But I’m not brave enough to take all my expensive Breakthrough Photography filters off my lenses! Or maybe I should sell all those filters on eBay ... and with the money buy a new lens!

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

Gee, how do you take pictures through a lens cap? A hood will , maybe, protect from side splatter, but not from a frontal assault.

Bipod

Every zoom lens will benefit from a lens hood outdoors. Much more contrasty.

Lens hoods are a good idea generally.
One never sees a professional cine camera outdoors without one.

But they do call attention to the camera and make it more cumbersome,
that's certainly true.

Bipod

Bipod

A scatched objective will more than halve the resale value of a lens, which
is something to consider.

Also, scatches become noticable when bright sunlight flares the lens.
The solution for that is a lens hood.

With a hooded lens you may never notice the scratch has any effect on
images. However, it does degrade the resolution and contrast a bit, but
usually not enough to matter.

So the answer depends on how you plan to print or display the final image.
If you are making large prints in a realistic style, then you are at or beyond
the resolution of a FF camera. In that situation, you really can't afford
to lose any resolution.

There are very few simple, unequivocal answers in photography.

Bipod

Filter on ring -- no more dings!

One good resason to keep a filter on the lens is that it help prevent
a common problem: dings to the lens's filter ring. Little dents in the
ring can be fixed, but not always perfectly, so its better to prevent them.

A really solid knock will send the filter flying and dent the ring, but
the filter will prevent milder collisions from causing damage.

If you don't want glass on the front of the lens, an adapter to a larger
size can be usd for the same purpose. For example, a 52 mm lens could be
protected with a 52 mm to 55 mm adapter (provided it's a strong one).
But a filter also protects the objective from being scratched.

Perhaps the best protection while shooting is a lens hood---which also improves
the image quality (contrast) in sunny situations. Rubberized lens hoods
are particularly good at absorbing knocks without damage to the lens.

Using a lens hood on sunny days is a habit that photographers should
try to develop (like remembering to remove the lens cap!) A little
inconvenience is a small price to pay for taking a great photograph.

Can't be bothered with a lens hood, heavy tripod, medium format camera?
Now you know why your landscape photos don't look like this guy's:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d5/ef/7e/d5ef7eabe903853581c6b679b273b038.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/75/f9/22/75f92253cb95ad7c67378c657d63e6b8.jpg

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

These days I buy only B+W or Heliopan filters.

For long lenses with deep lens hoods, no need for filters for "protection". Note all the BIF shooters on the UHH.

For short or "normal" prime lenses with shallow hoods, a 0 or UV filter may well keep finger smudges off the front element. Most of the lenses I personally use are primes of 19mm to 135mm with pretty much "exposed" front elements. So when not actually taking a shot or placing an appropriate lens hood on my "shortish" lens, I always keep a filter and lens cap on the lens. I do sometimes remove the filter for critical or detail requiring shots. I have not damaged lens yet, and rarely if ever have had to contact clean the glass of the lens.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Whose dropping all these cameras and lenses anyway? I've owned about 20 cameras of various types and 40 some lenses since 1977 and I've only dropped one lens once on to carpeting in my parents' living room way in my early days of photography. It had no effect on my Asahi smc-Pentax-M 135mm f/3.5 lens. I still have it. Though it has been replaced for use by a Asahi smc-Pentax-A 135mm f/2.8 lens. Though I much later once lost grip on a lens but caught it against my body. That would have been a bad fall, on to the steps in front of the L.A. Co. Museum of Natural History. Good by lens had it hit the concrete.

Bill_de Loc: US

Since going digital I normally use either Nikon or B+W neutral clear filters. I bought a Sigma 100-400 lens that came with a Sigma UV, so I use it. I think they do a fair job of protecting against blowing sand, water, etc. They won't do much if the lens takes a hard fall.

--

delkeener Loc: SW Rhode Island, USA

Why? What makes their glass "best"?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I use filters on all my lenses. The only filters I prefer are B+W. That decision was made after conversations with B+W optical engineers. I admire their honesty and the integrity of their products.
--Bob

Carnac Loc: Las Vegas

B+W, Hoya, Heliopan, and Breakthrough Photography (new brand that has great reviews) are all top end filters (if you get their top of the line).

I like B+W for their brass rings - less issues with sticking to the lens and have a nice feel. Their Kaesemann foil polarizing filters are excellent.

Although you might think Canon, Nikon of Sony would be the best, but they are usually considered second tier filters (they are probably rebranded). Tiffin are OK, but I feel they are also second tier.

Square filters (gelatin - and easy to scratch) are speciality filters - things like gradient neutral density or color warming polarizing filters. Singh-ray and Lee are some of the best of this type.