Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Price is not an indication of filter optical quality. Nor are the manufacturer's claims. The lenstip review on a large group of UV filters shows that the Hoya mid-range filter outperforms there more expensive filters, and all others.

That being said, anything you place in front of your lens will adversely affect your image. The goal is to contain the damage. The rationale behind using a filter is that anything that can damage a filter can also damage a front element, so the cost of and time involved om replacing a filter is far cheaper and faster than replacing a front element if your lens suffers damage. And cheap crappy filters can turn the images that come from a $2000 lens into something that looks like it was shot with a $75 point and shoot, but never the other way around.

With digital there is no advantage or disadvantage to using clear glass over UV.

Canonuser Loc: UK and South Africa

Obviously from the information he picked up the parameters he was left with were still too wide and he thought we may be able to help. Most of the replies did.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

I ruined a bunch of photos one day with a cheap UV filter. Haven't used one of any kind since.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

Hi Neal, I have a Sigma lens with a UV filter, from what I can recall it wasn't that expensive, so go ahead a get one.
John.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have Hoya clear filters on my lenses, just for protection. I also use the Xume magnetic adapters, so I can have them on and off in less than a second. I use 77mm CPLs with those adapters.

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Exactly.

Walt

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

That's a very helpful response.

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

I agree with RichardSM. I stopped using UV filters and now have Digital CLEAR filters for almost all of my lenses.
As I understand it, UV protection is apparently redundant as the lens or camera naturally filter UV. I could be wrong.
I use the clear because it allows the most light into the camera, offers lens protection, and allows other filters, like a CPL or ND filter to screw on top.
For protection, you should also use a lens hood.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Neal,

Another thought is warranty against accidental damage. I have an inexpensive addendum to my homeowner's for all of my gear that covers theft or loss even away from home, accidental damage and mechanical failure. With this, I do not use filters for glass protection (outdoors I always use a polarizer anyway).

Next, minor front element damage might not be as bad as you think, at least according to an article found here: http://petapixel.com/2011/06/16/how-dust-and-damage-on-lenses-affect-image-quality/

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

What, exactly, do think might happen to your lens that some thin piece of glass will prevent and that it's nice deep lens hood (used properly of course) or it's lens cap won't do a better job avoiding?

I've seen lenses scratched by broken filters. Would they have survived better without the filter? I don't know and have no way to prove it one way or another.

I've heard folks claim their lens was "saved" by a filter. Was it really? I don't know and neither do they. There really is no way to prove it one way or another.

Meanwhile, it's particularly obvious just looking at them, that my lenses' matching hoods - and to a lesser degree their lens caps - have done a very effective job protecting those lenses. All my lens hoods have marks from scrapes and bumps... that left the lenses un-effected. And there's no way a good fitting lens hood can possibly degrade an image. In fact a hood is likely to improve an image (and sort of ironically, if using a filter it becomes even more important to use a lens hood to keep oblique light off the filter too).

Yes, I do have high quality, multi-coated UV filters to fit most of my lenses. Mostly B+W MRC and Hoya HMC or HD/HD2. Those filters are stored separately in my camera bag... I install and use them occasionally... Such as when shooting at the beach where there is blowing sand and/or salt air. The latter is particularly hard to clean off lenses. So it just seems practical to be a little cautious. I also might use if I were shooting photos at a paintball contest... I do use them at times when I'm right next to a dirt race track or similar.

But most of the time my lenses go without filters and somehow they've managed to survive, some for decades! I nearly always use a lens hood when shooting and always cap my lenses when they're stored. Caps and hoods give far better "protection" than a thin piece of glass ever could.

I would never waste my money on "clear, protection only" filters. I deliberately buy UV, because in some rare situations they can help reduce haze in the distance, too. So in a sense they serve dual purpose and aren't just for protection.

But, the above statement about filtering UV is incorrect. Many films were (and probably still are) overly sensitive to UV light, which gives images a cooler bluish cast. So UV filters served another purpose then, helping to reduce that effect on film. But digital cameras have built-in UV filtration that prevents this issue. So there is no such benefit, with digital cameras.

In general, I spent a lot of money on a quality camera and lens in order to make photos. I'm not going to put anything that might have some negative effect on those photos between me and the subjects of those photos, without giving it careful consideration, without some benefit that makes the compromise worth it. My lenses are tools and don't need to be babied (and the really, really expensive ones have no means of attaching a filter anyway!).

Now, a quality multi-coated UV filter will have minimal negative effect on images under ideal conditions and even much of the time. There's always some loss, but it can be so little as to be imperceptible. But in more difficult lighting situations - the really dramatic stuff I'm always looking for and trying to capture in an image - even the best filter will degrade an image more and can be problematic. Some people choose to remove their "protection" filter at those times. I usually don't have time to stop and remove a filter when those opportunities present themselves, so I instead choose to leave the filter off most of the time and only install it at those rare times when there is some actual risk to the lens that the filter might help with.

If putting a "protection" filter is comforting to you and will mean you'll get out and shoot with your lens more, I say go for it. Just be sure to do some careful test shots, with and without the filter. Some lenses show a lot more effect from filters. The Canon 100-400mm is one of those... Many new users of it are stunned by how much sharper their lens is, after they remove the filter they thought was protecting it. I don't know about the lens you bought, so you'll have to do some with/without tests for yourself.

"Outdoors I always use a polarizer anyway" is much worse than always using a UV filter! You have at least twice as many layers of glass to reduce IQ in a variety of ways, plus are losing 1 or 2 stops of light all the time. Ever shoot vertical/portrait orientation? Or only take horiz/landscape shots? Re-orient the filter for every shot?

Yes, one of the selling points of B+W's better grades of filters is that they are mounted in brass frames... which are less prone to galling in the threads of metal-barreled lenses. However many lenses today use plastic filter threads, which may make this pretty much a moot point. Still, it can't hurt.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

yes, you will want one. go for the hoya or b+w filter. while pricey in 82mm, it will be most advantageous for your results.

gsconsolvo Loc: Ruidoso, New Mexico

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Amfoto, that was a nice, well-thought reply and I agree with all but the part where you disagree with me about polarizers. I love their effect, an effect that you surely know cannot be duplicated in post. Yes, I know that angle to the sun matters and I'll turn it to disable it if I have an inconsistent sky, and yes,I do rotate it as needed for every shot. Not such a big deal now with autofocus, unlike the old slr days when I had to focus and rotate my filter. I use only Heliopan and B+W, and and there is perhaps minimal, but certainly imperceptible image degradation. Loss of a stop or two? Really? On a bright sunny day - the only situation in which they are useful - I have plenty of stops to spare.

This has gone a bit off-topic, but I suggested that for at least daylight outdoor shooting many shooters (most?) Already have a filter on anyway, so a protective one isn't necessary.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I just thought I'd add a personal experience. I carry four lenses in my bag and each one of them is fitted with a UV filter. The filters do nothing to image quality but one time I had water splashed on the front of one of my lenses. I was able to pull the UV, clean it completely and got no water drops on my front element. I wouldn't be without them.

Jim Bob

My sentiments exactly. Some of these posters obviously have mush for brains.