It seems simple... (Page 4): I guess you can't tell when someone is being facetious. But I have had 2 pros tell me they thought they were unnecessary and that has always been enough...

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

I guess you can't tell when someone is being facetious. But I have had 2 pros tell me they thought they were unnecessary and that has always been enough for me. Like I said, if you are on the careless side and drop your camera a lot, use them.

kymarto wrote:

Actually untrue. There is a world of difference be... (show quote)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I use B+W UV filters on all my lenses. The reason is just that. It protects the front element and requires less cleaning of the front element. I do not use a filter under certain circumstances, but those amount to only about 2% of the photography I do.

Just on a lark, I took photos of the same subject with and without the filters. I'd defy anyone to be able to tell me which was which.
--Bob

Eyeman wrote:

Hello gang... I am a long-time UH stalker that finally would like a group response. We were burned out in the northern California Camp fire, and I am slowly rebuilding my gear, hence the excuse for 'replacing' my camera :>). For years I used a UV filter to protect my lenses from mechanical damage until a pro whom I respect said 'oh no.. that degrades your images'. But now with two shiny new lenses, how much really do I need to worry about that ? Thanks for your responses in advance !!

CaliforniaDreamer

Canon recomends a front filter of some kind to aid their "water resistant" lenses. I guess if you are shooting in the rain it could be important.

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

Eyeman wrote:

Hello gang... I am a long-time UH stalker that finally would like a group response. We were burned out in the northern California Camp fire, and I am slowly rebuilding my gear, hence the excuse for 'replacing' my camera :>). For years I used a UV filter to protect my lenses from mechanical damage until a pro whom I respect said 'oh no.. that degrades your images'. But now with two shiny new lenses, how much really do I need to worry about that ? Thanks for your responses in advance !!

Eyeman, quality filters of any kind do not degrade the image, cheap ones might. However, now that you have brought it up, you may be violating the 'do not tempt fate' rule! Yeah, right, that has never happened before? At least keep the lens hood on at all times for protection, do not tempt fate!

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

foathog wrote:

I guess you can't tell when someone is being facetious. But I have had 2 pros tell me they thought they were unnecessary and that has always been enough for me. Like I said, if you are on the careless side and drop your camera a lot, use them.

What makes you think that damaging a lens would necessarily be your fault?

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

CaliforniaDreamer wrote:

Canon recomends a front filter of some kind to aid their "water resistant" lenses. I guess if you are shooting in the rain it could be important.

I don't consider a lens that requires a filter to make it water resistant a water resistant lens. Do you? maybe THEY should supply the filter. seems like bull struance* to me.

* not a real word. LOL

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I prefer a high quality (B&W HRC) clear filter. If you've ever fallen, or dropped a lens on concrete (I have) you will appreciate what that filter does for you. It also serves to keep that (expensive) front element clean as you normally need to clean only the filter. I've been doing exactly this for over 50 years. Not a UV, a Clear filter. Best of luck.

ELNikkor

I'm much more relaxed around rain splatter, fingerprints from curious children nearby, sneeze splatter, excited dog-licking everything in sight, salt-spray, Coke fizz etc etc. when I know it is all hitting my $30 filter rather than the front surface of my $1,000 lens; but that's just me. On very rare occasion, if I believe that my superbly engineered and coated filters may have a slight effect on my final amazing image, I just unscrew the filter, take the photo, then put the filter back on.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

ELNikkor wrote:

I'm much more relaxed around rain splatter, fingerprints from curious children nearby, sneeze splatter, excited dog-licking everything in sight, salt-spray, Coke fizz etc etc. when I know it is all hitting my $30 filter rather than the front surface of my $1,000 lens; but that's just me. On very rare occasion, if I believe that my superbly engineered and coated filters may have a slight effect on my final amazing image, I just unscrew the filter, take the photo, then put the filter back on.

I would strongly recommend staying away from a $30 filter. Best of luck.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

lamontcranston wrote:

I love these posts. Everyone has their own perspe... (show quote)

I always had fun with cleaning my front element but I became very proficient at cleaning my front element with practice back in the film days. These days I just stick the lens under the slow running faucet, dry with a microfiber towel, and finish up with a microfiber cloth. Much easier. Plus the coatings are much harder than they use to be. I stopped worrying about sand at the sand dunes here in Colorado and don't worry about the dust that gets kicked up by the wind. I find the best protection is the lens hood and lens cap. Have hit both on occasion with and without a filter on. Maybe that is why I buy the best filters even though they are expensive; don't have to replace them so far because of the hood and cap.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

CHG_CANON wrote:

Filters are a personnel choice. And yet, you'll ge... (show quote)

I agree and use filters all the time. I have a few lenses where the lens is very close to the front and I feel much better with filter onn

Bill P

Did you ever break a UV filter in the past? Yes, and my Nikon 17-35 2.8 was unharmed.

PS: If you can't resist using a filter for protection, a UV isn't requires with today's digitals. Get a clear filter but a good one.[/quote]
On what do you base this judgement? For a modern digital camera, a clear filter and a UV filter should be EXACTLY THE SAME.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I've seen comments that talk about image degradation and image coloration. I would doubt anything as close to the lens as a filter would produce any image degradation unless the lens focal length is less than, say 24mm full frame equivalent. Anything longer is just not going visibly perceive and resolve the distortion. Anything shorter and we are probably going to see vignetting from the filter's mounting ring.

And for the 99% of you that seem to use Auto White Balance, I'd wager that neither you nor anyone else is going to be able to see the difference between a clear filter and a UV filter, even if it does have a slight yellow tint. Any tint in the filter is almost certainly going to be less then the incremental change that the camera makes when adjusting WB, which in my experience is 50 or 60 degree K steps. And if it happens to be greater, the camera is going to adjust it out for you.

So I think we should either use filters or not, as we choose, and redirect the energy from this argument to something that really matters.

GregoryF Loc: Bella Vista, AR

Eyeman wrote:

Hello gang... I am a long-time UH stalker that finally would like a group response. We were burned out in the northern California Camp fire, and I am slowly rebuilding my gear, hence the excuse for 'replacing' my camera :>). For years I used a UV filter to protect my lenses from mechanical damage until a pro whom I respect said 'oh no.. that degrades your images'. But now with two shiny new lenses, how much really do I need to worry about that ? Thanks for your responses in advance !!

Hi Eyeman. I too am a longtime stalker and new user and lost most of my gear in the Camp Fire as well.
As far as UV filters, I never use them anymore, but always use a hood.

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

Eyeman wrote:

Wow...thanks to all... all good answers too... I have also never in decades bashed by lens directly, which leads me in the direction of no filter... and careful cleaning of the dust that coats all of us as we wander :>). How do y'all do that ?

Years ago I dropped a lens that had filter, cap, and hood all in place. Guess which saved the lens (which was a Vivitar Series I 70-210 zoom). The answer ... none did. The barrel hit a rock and was dented such that the lens could not zoom or focus. The repair only cost slightly more than half the price of a new lens.