I saw that this past week we had rehashed the old controversial question about to UV filter or not to protect our expensive lenses. I felt compelled to ask my go to person, who I highly respect. If you’re interested, below is the question and the response, for what it’s worth.

My (Ritz) Filter/Lens Protector Question:
I had a question about camera lens protection, which I have
heard has been debated to adnauseam, also on the Ugly Hedgehog 
web site. I have Canon "L" lenses and the question is, should high
grade UV or Clear filters be used to add additional protection to the lens
or no filter at all? Maybe just rely on a lens hood for lens protection.
And of cause the issue of filter interference with exposure quality
comes up as well.

Scott’s Response:
In my opinion there should be no UV lens in front of the cameras glass. 
My reasons are as follows...
The glass on the lens is expensive and made at the sharpest quality possible. 
The lenses are well treated with anti glare products at the factory for best use. 
If you were to hit something with the camera lens, a filter would certainly break and scratch the element of the camera for possibly double the damage. 
Image quality.. Unless there is some haze you are looking to clear up a UV filter is basically useless and can even add glare and ghosting from the double pain of glass at the front of the camera.

So, I am against the UV filter. Everything quality wise and filter wise can be done on computer anyway. Hope that helps!!

Creatively Yours,
Scott
Master Photographer
Master Craftsman
President of PPGNY
Canon Ambassador
Wildlife Photographer Contributor to National Geographic

I saw that this past week we had rehashed the old controversial question about to UV filter or not to protect our expensive lenses. I felt compelled to ask my go to person, who I highly respect. If you’re interested, below is the question and the response, for what it’s worth.

My (Ritz) Filter/Lens Protector Question:
I had a question about camera lens protection, which I have
heard has been debated to adnauseam, also on the Ugly Hedgehog 
web site. I have Canon "L" lenses and the question is, should high
grade UV or Clear filters be used to add additional protection to the lens
or no filter at all? Maybe just rely on a lens hood for lens protection.
And of cause the issue of filter interference with exposure quality
comes up as well.

Scott’s Response:
In my opinion there should be no UV lens in front of the cameras glass. 
My reasons are as follows...
The glass on the lens is expensive and made at the sharpest quality possible. 
The lenses are well treated with anti glare products at the factory for best use. 
If you were to hit something with the camera lens, a filter would certainly break and scratch the element of the camera for possibly double the damage. 
Image quality.. Unless there is some haze you are looking to clear up a UV filter is basically useless and can even add glare and ghosting from the double pain of glass at the front of the camera.

So, I am against the UV filter. Everything quality wise and filter wise can be done on computer anyway. Hope that helps!!

Creatively Yours,
Scott
Master Photographer
Master Craftsman
President of PPGNY
Canon Ambassador
Wildlife Photographer Contributor to National Geographic

I saw that this past week we had rehashed the old controversial question about to UV filter or not to protect our expensive lenses. I felt compelled to ask my go to person, who I highly respect. If you’re interested, below is the question and the response, for what it’s worth.

My (Ritz) Filter/Lens Protector Question:
I had a question about camera lens protection, which I have
heard has been debated to adnauseam, also on the Ugly Hedgehog 
web site. I have Canon "L" lenses and the question is, should high
grade UV or Clear filters be used to add additional protection to the lens
or no filter at all? Maybe just rely on a lens hood for lens protection.
And of cause the issue of filter interference with exposure quality
comes up as well.

Scott’s Response:
In my opinion there should be no UV lens in front of the cameras glass. 
My reasons are as follows...
The glass on the lens is expensive and made at the sharpest quality possible. 
The lenses are well treated with anti glare products at the factory for best use. 
If you were to hit something with the camera lens, a filter would certainly break and scratch the element of the camera for possibly double the damage. 
Image quality.. Unless there is some haze you are looking to clear up a UV filter is basically useless and can even add glare and ghosting from the double pain of glass at the front of the camera.

So, I am against the UV filter. Everything quality wise and filter wise can be done on computer anyway. Hope that helps!!

Creatively Yours,
Scott
Master Photographer
Master Craftsman
President of PPGNY
Canon Ambassador
Wildlife Photographer Contributor to National Geographic

I saw that this past week we had rehashed the old controversial question about to UV filter or not to protect our expensive lenses. I felt compelled to ask my go to person, who I highly respect. If you’re interested, below is the question and the response, for what it’s worth.

My (Ritz) Filter/Lens Protector Question:
I had a question about camera lens protection, which I have
heard has been debated to adnauseam, also on the Ugly Hedgehog 
web site. I have Canon "L" lenses and the question is, should high
grade UV or Clear filters be used to add additional protection to the lens
or no filter at all? Maybe just rely on a lens hood for lens protection.
And of cause the issue of filter interference with exposure quality
comes up as well.

Scott’s Response:
In my opinion there should be no UV lens in front of the cameras glass. 
My reasons are as follows...
The glass on the lens is expensive and made at the sharpest quality possible. 
The lenses are well treated with anti glare products at the factory for best use. 
If you were to hit something with the camera lens, a filter would certainly break and scratch the element of the camera for possibly double the damage. 
Image quality.. Unless there is some haze you are looking to clear up a UV filter is basically useless and can even add glare and ghosting from the double pain of glass at the front of the camera.

So, I am against the UV filter. Everything quality wise and filter wise can be done on computer anyway. Hope that helps!!

Creatively Yours,
Scott
Master Photographer
Master Craftsman
President of PPGNY
Canon Ambassador
Wildlife Photographer Contributor to National Geographic

Scott, I see you call yourself a Master Photographer, and a National Geographic contributor, yet you have to ask your mentor about the benefits and drawbacks of using a UV filter. Something does not sound right. And on top of that you call yourself a Canon Ambassador, interesting.
Personally, I have never used a UV filter, too heavy for my long lenses. I do agree with most of your mentor's comments except the one about the UV filter damaging the end glass in the event of a impact. That has not been my experience, but again, not my experience in over 50 years as a professional photographer, whatever that is worth.