Dan Ausec

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

No. Neither filter is necessary. Lenses don't need filters for "protection". Lens hoods and lens caps give much better "protection" than any thin piece of fragile glass ever could.

There are rare occasions such as a scenic vista when a UV filter might help reduce some bluish haze... but generally speaking digital cameras are not overly sensitive to UV light the way much film was, back in the day. That's the real reason we used UV filters a lot back then... NOT to "protect" our lenses.

There are also some rare occasions when a filter might give some protection... out shooting in a sand storm... or during a rain storm... or perhaps during a paintball battle. But if you don't plan to do any of those, putting one on your lens will do little to no good. In fact, a filter might even do damage if it ever gets broken and the sharp shards of glass are driven into the front element of your lens. So if you install a filter, be especially careful to use your lens hood and lens cap... to protect the FILTER!

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

When I was new to photography I thought I'd protect my lenses with a UV. I've since gone without filters and depend on the hood for bump protection. Nothing will protect your lens from dropping it. Dropping is the major reason for the existence of repair centers. Do not drop your stuff!

Bill P

I don't see the difference between a high quality UV filter and a high quality clear filter.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

I use a Canon "Protect" filter with a lens hood. I'm pretty sure that Nikon has a similar "filter". Also, expect a huge amount of blow-back just for posing such a question here on the UHH, grin.
I'm pretty sure that the filter/non-filter folks will come to verbal blows on this thread as well. If you do use a filter for protection, use a good quality filter.
Please don't put a buck-ninety-eight ($1.98) filter on a quality Nikon lens. Remember, there are two types of photographers.
Those who have accidentally screwed up a high dollar lens, and those who are about to screw up a high dollar unprotected lens, sigh.
All of our best to you on your Photographic Journey,
JimmyT Sends.

fantom Loc: Colorado

That made me laugh out loud.

FWIW ---I use a clear filter and i/they have saved my lenses on more than one occasion and I am super careful of them---but sometimes they foolishly go where I go. When practical, a lens hood provides good protection but they are sometimes cumbersome depending on what or where you are shooting.

Bipod

What's the worst thing that can happen with a UV filter?
What's the worst thing that can happen without any filter?

And use a lens hood too. (Good suggestion, dsmeltz.)

Coated UV filter is the same price as coated plain glass filter.
Some digital sensors do extend into the UV range. And some lenses do pass UV

Strictly speaking, chances are you don't "need" a camera. But now that you've got one,
and a lens, why not protect it from scratches and dings?

leftj Loc: Texas

Now it’s my turn to laugh.

fantom Loc: Colorado

Some people actually leave their grandmother's basement and get out into the world where lens protection becomes more of a concern. Even minimal protection like a filter is better than no protection at all---as I have encountered more than once. On the other hand, improved lens protection such as a lens hood can be a serious encumbrance depending on circumstances and environment.

To carry camera safety to an extreme, in certain situations or parts of the world it can be very important to quiet the shutter or with a P&S turn the artificial sound off entirely, as well as the flash.

leftj Loc: Texas

Tell me about a lens hood being a serious encumbrance.

fantom Loc: Colorado

scrambling over large rocks and boulders--even when tethered, many climbing situations, ropes courses, in toothbrush thick bamboo, crowded elevators, some macro photography etc etc. Use your imagination. The point being, not every lens/camera protection device is good in all situations.

leftj Loc: Texas

What you just described is where a lens hood would be the most effective and a filter would be the least effective.

fantom Loc: Colorado

Common sense, insight, acumen, understanding and imagination are not flowers that grow in everyone's garden----as your witless posts emphatically prove. I will not be answering anymore of your silly, tedious childish inquiries.

leftj Loc: Texas

Yeah figured you would cave when your arguments bordered on the rediculois.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

twilight first please allow me to welcome you to UHH!
And please allow me to apologize for those have belittled you and/or your query...
Using an epic quote from antiquity ... "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"

As for your Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens?
From the User Manual published by Nikon... the section on "Lens Care"

"The lens hood or NC filter can be used to protect the front lens element"
I consider this authoritative... and follow it...

There have been responses that claim that "Filters" do nothing for the image equation.
twilight I assist well over a dozen commercial photographers in my market (mostly architectural assignments) and the majority of them deploy ND (Neutral Density) filters frequently.
Quite a few also use Circular Polarizers for exteriors...

In fact one of the most notable of my clients uses a nearly opaque filter for lengthy time exposures to remove traffic from the streets in the scene... He is simply amazing!

I use ND filters creatively for several reasons... first to create a surreal aquatic narrative by allowing a 30 second to 5 minute exposure via a ND10 filter...

However most important to me commercially is to allow the use of powerful studio strobes for location
portraiture... typically a ND 2 or ND 3 which allows me to shoot wide open at f/1.8 to f/2.8 at ISO 64 and 1/250. This enhances subject isolation by blurring out distracting elements in front or behind the talent... While I can use High Speed Sync I prefer the massive power of a studio strobe to turn daylight into twilight...

btw, my AF-S 200-400mm f/4 IF ED VR lens comes with a clear "front protective element" which is termed a "protective meniscus glass"...

The AF-S 200-400mm f/4 IF ED VR lens does take filters... 52mm filters drop in a rear drawer... The lens comes with a 52mm clear filter element that is part of the optical equation and must not be removed only swapped for another filter type.

If Nikon considers a protective meniscus glass paramount for this professional grade optic, possibly you might be wise to follow their lead with your lens... enough said.

Hope this helps twilight... In time I honestly believe you will arrive at your own decision here... experience is a brutal yet excellent teacher...
I wish you well on your journey twilight...