Hankwt Loc: kingsville ontario

Are the clear protective lens covers detrimental to photo sharpness etc ??
Obviously they do help to protect your lens but does that come at a clarity price ?? Im not talking about specialty filters- like polarizing, ND etc just the so called Clear or UV protectors. I would think this additional glass would have some sort of effect ??? Any Idea what the Lens Manufacturers recommend ?? Has there been any real reliable tests done on this ??

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Lets get one thing straight right up front, UV filters are NOT CLEAR! (Nor are Skylight 1A filters, another common misconception) UV filters are meant to reduce haze in an image and work well for that purpose, and no other. They can degrade your image under optimum conditions and should not be used for protection, unless you remove them before shooting, but then you just wasted your time and may have missed the shot.
Protective filters sold cheap over the internet are likey just a piece of window glass, no matter what the ad may claim, and these are even more worthless than UV, typically.
"Optically Clear" protective filters sold by the major manufacturers are designed specifically to protect your lens' front element with no degradation of image quality. My personal choice is the Nikon NC filters. I have tested them extensively in identical shots with and without the filter in place and have never been able to tell the compared images apart.

Here is a very comprehensive test done of UV filters a few years ago, prepared to be scared!
http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

While I believe all of what is stated above by our highly esteemed MT Shooter, one can get too involved in picking nits and get away from practical reality.
The referenced tests are impressive, and certainly provide a guide to which UV filter you should consider for the best color fidelity and light transmission. It is no surprise that Hoya and B+W are in the top of the tested list, while some other brands seem to have fallen a tad short without a cost reduction.

A quality UV filter is universally considered next to benign color wise as they are designed to let in 98%+ of visible light without altering its color to any visually perceptible level. The key words here are "quality" and "perceptible."

If you are outdoors, you may benefit from a UV filter.
If you are indoors, you will typically not benefit from a UV filter.

The odd thing is that quality UV filters (for example, the Hoya HMC UV-0 and similar models from B+W) usually cost less than optically clear glass filters. Quality clear Schott glass filters are not cheap and they serve only one purpose -- to help physically protect your lens. And that is a very important thing. But with UV filters being much more popular and widely available, their same basic optical quality (w/o nit picking small inherent differences) cost less.

See the following clear 77mm filter from B+W for example:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/475495-REG/B_W_661001705_77mm_007_Protection_Clear.html

Then see the following similar 77mm UV filter from B+W:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11974-REG/B_W_65_070156_77mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Filter.html

While this cost delta is not always true, a UV filter is a multi tasker when outdoors.

Again, what MT Shooter says above is true, but the very subtle color and light transmission differences between quality UV filters and quality clear filters may not apply to every photographer. IMHO.

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

Another point I'll make is never to use them when another light source in close to or in the frame as you will get ghosting (especially true with night shots). Had a woman in the local photo club ask why these "blobs were in the photo she had taken of her son blowing out candles. What see was seeing was ghosting from the candle flames. Needless to say, I don't use "protective" filters & haven't for most of the 40+ years I've been shooting

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I was a purest and would not use one until the day I found a big scratch on my f/1.4 lens. As was said its nitpicking to see the differance. Dave

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I was a purest and would not use one until the day I found a big scratch on my f/1.4 lens. As was said its nitpicking to see the differance. Dave

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

I can point you to a site that shows that all nut the worst damage to the lens's front element will have little effect on the final image. At most a slight loss of contrast...Here is what a noted photographer says about lens damage & it has been my observation as well

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/lens_condition.html

And to stay more on topic,here is a link to a Luminous Landscape article about flare when using "protective" filters

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

i have 2 of the 77mm BW filters that i put on my 2 lenses, mainly for protection.

i have removed them and don't see any difference in any of the shots.

the BW 77mm filters were expensive!!! maybe i should just sell them. i never take the lens hoods off anyway.

anybody interested in a couple of 77mm BW UV filters?

Hankwt Loc: kingsville ontario

Damn it Looks like another question without a definitive answer. After looking around various websites there seem to be just as many USE and DONT use opinions.

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

Thought I'd throw this out there as well. Shows effects of scratches, et al on images...

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I have B&W clear filters on ALL my lenses.
They never come off.

Elliott Design Loc: West Tennessee

I had read in another article here on UHH that UV filters could cause a loss of detail, so I set out yesterday to try it for myself. My Canon 70/300 IS USM is not the best lens I'll agree, but I was getting some very soft images and was unable to get good AF, and even manual focus was still soft since putting the UV lens on.
Placing the camera on a tripod with the UV filter on, I used AF at 70, 100, 135, 200 & 300mm in manual mode for shutter/aperture, outside, sunny day, IS off. Then same setup without the UV filter and compared the images in my PP software, there was a BIG difference. Without the UV filter the images were much crisper throughout the focal range, a high-end filter may not degrade the detail but a $12 filter at a discount store surely does.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

That is the best way to judge for yourself. You have replicated the results I got 3 years ago.

desertRat1950

There is the issue of cleaning. Better to me to be 'scrubbing' on a $90 filter than a $300 front element.

Picdude Loc: Ohio

Maybe the bigger question is to ask yourself WHY do you feel you need lens protection? Are you in an environment with constant salt spray, blowing sand, dust or debris? Are you photographing under conditions where external debris can frequently impact your lens?

You will probably find that unless you are shooting in a hazardous environment and you use good common sense about replacing your lens cap between shots that filters should be used for just for what they are intended for. The exception to this might be for professionals who have their camera in-hand for most of the day, every day where accidents are more prone to occur. Filter is always cheaper than lens.