Dennis833 Loc: Australia

That's only one of the reasons why I never use one.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Not rumor! I have been shooting since 1975 and married to a travel agent since 1987. My Olympus, Canon, Minolta, and Hasselblad cameras have been everywhere in North America, Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Europe. I have fallen on some of them, dropped some of them, and banged them thousands of times into just about everything. I have actually fallen on my some of my cameras three times. I have wear and tear and damaged all my lense caps and and lens hoods. I have damaged two lens caps and one lens hood to to point of replacement. Total number of damaged cameras, lenses, and filters? One cracked point and shoot (was still functional) and no lost lenses or filters. I have not babied any of my cameras much except to make sure I have really good camera bags. And with the new Olympus system, there is no babying at all (my E-M1mkII / 14-54 lens is one of the cameras I fell on; no damage to body, lens, or polarizing filter. But the lens hood, it took a file and some reshaping. That's nearly 45 years and total damage of two lens caps, one lens hood, and a slight crack in my wife's point and shoot (my cause).

Bill_de Loc: US

Sometime the light will not cooperate even with the best filter. In the long run you did what you had to do.

--

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

This question has been asked and answered many times on this forum and on many other sites. Nonetheless, it is a legitimate question that deserves a logical answer. Ofttimes there are solutions that are viemently one-side as to the pros and cons of protective filter usage. Here's a commonsense concept.

ANY filter you place on your lens adds additional elements, that is, more glass surfaces, to the light path and therefore has the POTENTIAL of impairing image quality as to sharpness, contrast, susceptibility to flare or cause vignetting or other kinds of interference.

The potential for image degrading is somewhat preventable by the use of high-quality filters made of optical quality glass and designed and manufactured to high standards of quality control, and ideally, coated to mitigate the potential for flare.

Even filters of optimum quality can still have some negative effects but these may not become noticeable at moderate degrees of enlargement unless the image quality is examined under the most critical criteria, high magnification or with the use of laboratory/optical bench instrumentation.

Filters of various kinds should be used when their benefits outweigh the possible side effects- just like medicine. The same concept applies to polarizing (CPL) filters, neutral density (ND) filters, split ND filters and all kinds of color correction, color balancing, tonal contrast filters for black and white photography and special effect filters.

Filters designated as "skylight" or UV (UltraViolet) types were commonly used and recommended with many kinds of color FILMS to eliminate a bluish color shift that resulted from the films' sensitivity to UV light. Digital cameras do not respond in this manner so theses filters, having no effect on exposure, are still employed by many photographers as protection filters to prevent damage to the front elements of their lenses. Some photographers use theses older skylight or UV filters on their current digital cameras or purchase clear-optical glass filters which are strictly for lens protection.

If you are working in a studio or indoor environment under household or interior location or out-of-doors in a "country garden" or a calm landscape OR you are hyper-critical about the loss of image integrity, you probably don't need a protection filter so you needn't use one. If you are producing extremely large final images like prints over 30x40 is size, larger photomurals, images for display on a Jumbotron or other large screen you may want to minimize filter usage when possible.

If, however, you are working in rough terrain or under hazardous conditions or inclement weather, in the thickets, or where there might be windblown sand, grit, dirt, or salt or water spray or other hazards or if you are shooting on an industrial site where there may be airborne sawdust, filings, metallic particles or splatter, or in a kitchen or food prep area where there is steam or airborne grease or oil, splatter from frying food, or other such hazards, you should protect your lens from serious and costly damage with the appropriate filter. Any of these perils can cause pitting, scratches, smudges that are nearly impossible to clean or damage to the lens coating. A filter will not usually protect you lenses form extreme impact from flying projectiles- they ain't bulletproof! If the filter breaks or shatters, the shards of glass will not benefit your lens.

LENS HOODS: The actual function of a lens hood is to prevent stray light from striking the lens or filter and thereby causing FLARE which results in a loss of contrast and image quality. These hoods can offer some protection form certain impacts to the lens, however, that is not their main function, and in fact, in some instances, they can actually cause more damage. Metal or hard plastic hoods, extending from the lens, can add additional torque or leverage to an impact and cause extensive damage to the lens and the camera. For this reason, many photographers who work in active situations prefer shades made of rubber or other flexible materials that will bend when impacted but will still shade sufficiently.

I have used filters, as described above, on all kinds of commercial work and made prints up to 40x60 inch and bigger with no detrimental effects. I won't use them if they are not required for aesthetic or technical reasons or fore hazard protection. I used them more extensively during the film era in that there were more requirements for color balancing and correction, which nowadays are easily addressed by white balance adjustments. I still use my colored filter for tonal contrast control in black and white work.

High-quality filters have excellent optical quality and superior mechanical attributes as well. Their mounts or frames are more stable and don't tend to deform and cross-thread and get stuck on your lens. Make certain the diameter of the filter is exactly what you lenses require. Some wide angle lenses may require special low-profile filters that won't vignette, that is, cause light cutoff at the edges of the frame.

There are many time-honored brands and some new names on the market. I have extensive experience with filters made by B+W, Zeiss, Hoya, Sing-Ray, and those marked by Nikon, Canon, and Hasselblad- never had an issue.

Just like any other lens or optical accessory, maintain them properly with appropriate cleaners, and tissue. Use them wisely, judiciously and carefully. If you have good filters in good condition and encounter an issue, it is wise to review your technique. Make sure everything in the optical path is clean, see that the filter is seated properly and that no extraneous light is striking the filter.

Bill_de Loc: US

There you go with that common sense again.

--

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

My piece of "Plastic" if I remember was about $50.00 and is coated optical glass. The only plastic is the plastic hood and on some lenses parts of the lens.

splatbass Loc: Honolulu

The exposure is irrelevant because it looked like this through the viewfinder.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Thanks for the reminder about hazards like hot splattering tomato sause (tends to be a hot acidic) and weld splatter. A lot of us don't often get requests for commercial work and tend to "forget" important possibilities associated with that kind of work. Should I get offered such work or want to broaden the scope of my abilities, I will try to remember your advice about the use of a clear or other appropriate filter.

Angmo

I never use a UV filter. It’s just yet another hunk of glass between the subject and sensor/film.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Since the difference was apparent in the viewfinder, the only thing I can think of is that the filter had some dust on it and was illuminated. That would present a "fog" obscuring the view.

But that is more of an indication that a lens hood is needed than that a filter is a detriment.

Angmo

I always shoot with lens hoods. Every lens I own has a hood.

willie-83

I Look At It This Way, I Spend A Couple Thousand For A Camera and Several Thousand For OEM Lens For That Camera. Why Would I Want To Cover That Front Lens With A Cheap Filter? The Lens Hood Has Protected My Collection For Many Years. Take It Off To Shoot.

PierreD

As others already pointed out, if you work in "dirty" (sand, mud, grit, filings, oil, or tomato sauce) environments, it's going to be much cheaper to replace a filter, if it gets damaged, than the front lens of your camera. In these situations your best protection is to use the hood PLUS a filter.

Not to mention that folks say that even QUALITY (i.e., not cheap) filters degrade IQ, but seem unable to support their contention by providing actual evidence that this is the case.

danbir1 Loc: North Potomac, MD

B+W filter is not going to do that.
Even though I am in the minority here, I have to say, again, that all my lenses have been and are protected, yes, here I said it, protected, by a good quality B+W UV filter and in the 50+ years and with different cameras and lenses, I had never have an image quality problems of any sort.
My opinion and my experience only.

splatbass Loc: Honolulu

Yet it did.