amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

1. Never use a filter unless it's intended to improve an image in some way OR in situations where it might actually provide some protection (sandstorm, snow storm, rain, paint ball battle).

2. Lenses are A LOT tougher than filters. A thin, fragile piece of glass really provides very little physical protection. I've actually seen broken filters do damage to lenses. Whether or not the lens would have had less damage without a filter than is an open question that can never truly be answered (see #5, though).

3. While shooting, a lens hood provides better physical protection than a thin piece of glass ever could. And a properly fitted, matched lens hood can improve images, will never do any harm to them. When storing a lens or just carrying it, a lens cap provides even better protection. In fact, when using a filter a hood or cap should be used to protect the filter, too!

4. Filters can serve a purpose enhancing an image. Not many are needed for digital, since many filter effects can now be done just as well or even better in post-processing. About the only "necessary" filters for digital are Circular Polarizers (by far the most useful), Neutral Density in various strengths (very specialized) and UV/Sky/Clear (highly specialized, almost no image improvement effect, mostly just "protection"). Because so few filters are needed with digital (compared to film where 20, 30 or 40 different filters might be needed), it just makes sense to buy top quality, multi-coated filters that will do the least "harm" to images. Also because so few types of filters are needed with digital, it doesn't make sense to use step rings to allow oversize filters to be used on lenses, because that precludes using a well-fitted lens hood or properly capping the lens while the filter is installed.

5. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds for a reasonably thorough, actual testing of the effectiveness of UV filters for purposes of protection (spoiler alert: in some cases a sheet of paper would provide greater protection!) The problem is that it's impossible to test every filter on every lens in every possible scenario where a filter might help protect a lens OR where it might do harm to images or the lens itself. All we can do is look at the odds and experience.

The whole "UV filters for protection" myth probably got started back in the days of film, when we used UV, Skylight, various strength warming filters a lot because much film was overly sensitive to UV light, which caused a cool, bluish color cast in images. We WEREN'T using the filters "for protection" back then. But I think some people assumed we were and retailers picked up on this as a selling point. There's probably a lot more profit selling photo accessories than there is in the cameras and lenses themselves. At the very least, selling "add-ons" increases profits. It's like selling you an extended warranty: "Give us more of your money for something you probably will never need or use".

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

It's up to you as to using or not using a filter. I choose not to use them.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I prefer no filter but do use hoods and/or lens caps.

photoman43

I use a filter and a lens hood to protect the lens. I take the filter off when shooting directly into the sun, like for sunrises and sunsets, to avoid the possibility of the filter causing a "double sun" to appear. Why protection? I do mostly nature shooting with birds. I was next to a photographer at Bosque del Apache one morning that saw his $1000 zoom lens shattered by (hot) snow geese poop landing right on the center of the lens and the lens shattered because of the hot stuff hitting it (it was about 10 degrees that morning.) He did not have any filter on the lens. I use filters from B +W.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Not needed on digital cameras....... Another thread is going on here https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-608974-1.html

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

FWIW - I don't like to have unnecessary glass. So hood but no filter.

Bill P

This is again the on ramp to hell. It is indicative of what's wrong inour society today.

Believe this, not everything in life is black or white, in fact little is. Respect the grey, and understand that here are times when a filter is a bad idea, and others when it is essential.

Let's look for something new to start fights.

leftj Loc: Texas

Actually you're fooling yourself. You can't tell the difference with the naked eye.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Be careful with that naked eye, you don't want to scratch it or have water splash on it... for me I use reading glasses because my naked eye would be useless without it.

I was thinking of upgrading to UV reading glasses as of late...

FTn

I'm going to confess here. Early in my career I sold camera equipment in a photo shop. We were paid a spiff on everything we sold. A Canon AE-1 w/ 50mm f1.8 sold for $259. So I made an additional $2.59 on the sale. If I got the buyer to also purchase a Tiffin UV or Sky filter I made an additional $1 on the sale. If I could sell a Hoya UV or Sky it was an additional $2 and if they were on promotion another $5. UV and Skylight filters add absolutely nothing to the the image quality. The only time I use them is when shooting at the beach or around waterfalls.

- FTn

leftj Loc: Texas

Actually they did have a purpose on film cameras. The don't on digital other than adding some protection.

BocaMac

UV filters can be useful when light is bouncing off of the greenery in your landscape pictures. Properly used it will mitigate the clipping affect in post production. Have done it both ways. There are times that it doesn't work, but it is provably my inexperience. I use it mostly in those situations on sunny days.

griffzky

I have never seen the sense in putting an inferior (usually) piece of glass in front of my Canon L glass. I use a lens hood to protect my lens instead with the added bonus of helping eliminate lens flare.

Bill P

[quote=griffzky]I have never seen the sense in putting an inferior (usually) piece of glass in front of my Canon L glass.

I will again relate this slightly embarrassing story to refute your statement. I agree that in general your lens doesn't want or need a filter, BUT...
In the mid seventies, I was working cor a commercial studio, and I was sent to photograph something in a welding shop. I was just a kid in his twenties, what did I know. I was shooting a Hasselblad 500CM with a 40mm lens, a rather expensive WA shaped like a funnel. The front element was HUGE. It was unprotected. I didn't know anything about welding, but found out the hard way that welding throws off sparks which are tiny metallic particles of what they call slag. It bonds to glass in a big way. Good think for me that in those days a front element could be replaced.

A few years ago, I was visiting Genoa, Italy, and took a boat trip to a nearby town. The boat was going really fast and throwing up spray like crazy, The UV filter that I had on my lens got spotted with salt water all overit. Just wiped the white stuff off and moved on.

What would you do? Go without a filter in those occasions and hope you get the perfect shot before your lens in trashed, or give up the last imperceptible bit of sharpness and not have to buy a new lens?

AS I have said in this thread already, there is grey in life, not all is black and white, sometimes a filter is the best bet. After all, if you don't need it, just take it off.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

And in the end, were any minds changed, or souls saved?