larryepage Loc: North Texas area

My lenses all have some sort of high-quality filter installed. They are not there to protect in case of a drop or fall. They are there to be the "cleaned element." I would much rather clean an expendable filter than be continually cleaning a lens element and eventually damaging or eroding the coatings.

Most of my filters are not UV filters. While a high quality filter will not degrade image quality, any filter that blocks UV will impart a slight yellow cast to the image. A clear filter without other function is best.

leftj Loc: Texas

Yes, it is the UV coating that will degrade the image. A clear filter has no coating.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Those of us who use a clear or UV filter on our lenses and have had the same result as the OP will never be convinced that they do not offer extra protection. 2x for me.
I don't think Steve Perry is offering "Lens Insurance Without a Protective Filter".

jcwall396 Loc: Roswell, GA

Spot on. I never purchase a lens without also getting the UV filter at the same time. The second that lens comes out of the box, the filter goes on!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I read it and do not believe his story. No image of the reported broken camera strap, no image of the broken lens hood, in short, another fake news UV filter protection post.
Where's the beef???????????

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

rgrenaderphoto, I'm very glad things worked out for the best for you. Damaging equipment is a nightmare.

All but two of my lenses have B+W UV filters on them. One of the two, oddly, allows for a sunshade or a filter but not both. The other is just hard to find filters that fit. I do take the filters off in certain situations but those are only about 1% of the photographs I take.

I have had a camera strap failure...once. The company from which I purchased the strap replaced it for free after expressing concern about my camera. They admitted that the subcontractor that made the strap connectors didn't make them to spec. I use UpStrap camera straps exclusively because of their integrity.
--Bob

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Since this issue has become almost religious, much like "Canon vs Nikon" or Mac vs PC", and thus common sense plays little role in the way a given person falls, I hesitatingly once again bring up the root cause of the myth that "clear filters are good!"...

I managed a camera store some 50 years ago and know firsthand the reason we pushed that storyline was simply profitability. Customers who came to shop also perused the ads in the back of the photo magazines...from 47th St Photo, Willoughby-Peerless, et al - and so could see a given camera sold for, say $300. As a result, we would often have to match or come very close to that price, despite the fact that we paid much more wholesale than those big operations since we did not purchase nearly the quantities they did.

Bottom line, the profit margin on that $300 camera might have been $15-20. However, accessories like filters were fully marked up the more typical 100%, so that $30 filter we convinced the customer to purchase put another $15 profit in the books. And what better way to convince the customer that he or she "needs!" to protect that front element than to point out how protective that extra piece of glass would be!

Of course, front coatings on newer lenses are far superior to what was around then, making the "protection" thing that much more ridiculous. So, unless I'm shooting in a situation where there is mud and dirt flying around, I know better than to think the 'security blanket' feeling of a clear front filter is useful. And yes, i have dropped gear over the years - but still am not worried.

But, as I said, since this topic has become a near-emotional one for so many who are simply convinced this protection nonsense makes sense, I know this will fall on deaf eyes for those who have swallowed the Kool Aid. Sadly, in the human brain, emotion usually trumps rational thought (just witness the levels of stupidity uttered on the Covid stuff) so while I anticipate a bevy of responses "proving" how I don't know what I am talking about, I will not bother to convince those zealots.

fredpnm Loc: Corrales, NM

Yeah, kind of like seat belts in the car, they serve no purpose, at least not until you have an accident. The part I haven't figure out yet is how to snap the belt in place just before the accident. Timing is everything.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Understood.
But again, is the difference discernible?
Or is just knowing there is a difference, no matter how small the difference may be.

So, I should buy a lens with fewer elements in it so there is less image degradation from all the added glass?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Is this degradation something you can see? Or, something only you can see, perhaps in your mind's eye?
--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Ken Rockwell puts a filter on all his lenses. I can't believe the number of people who profess to be 0.3% more knowledgeable of photography than Ken Rockwell.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

leftj Loc: Texas

What filter does Ken put on his lenses? I put filters on all my lenses but they are clear filters.

stevetassi

Why not use a neutral clear filter instead? Then you have protection without image degradation.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I believe he's still a UV man, but we'd have to go read each time he reviews a lens and gives a link to the filter model. I mix clear and UV, but I shoot film and have older B+W F-PRO UV models along with my newer B+W XS-PRO filters, both UV and Clear. One can go through any of my posts in the photo gallery. All come from lenses with B+W filters. All.