rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Very insightful.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

There are more expensive filters. I have found the Hoya brand to be an excellent choice for me. And do not hesitate in recommending them.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

There is actually 3 different filters you should be looking at, all three by Hoya, or B+W. Look into a clear coated schott glass for lens protection, a good circular polarizer, for bright sun, and reflections from standing water, and finally a variable neutral density filter. You'll need to read up on the CPL, and ND filter to learn how and when to use them. I've seen what a splatter of bird poo can do to a lens outer elements coating. But, a mounted clear glass filter not only protects the lenses outer element, but the threads on the outer edge of the lens. As for shooting snow in the backyard, the ND filter, and the CPL will be of use to you.

B

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

If my memory is any where reliable, was it true that film was sensitive to the near UV and much less to the far UV. So it made sense to filter to block UV to avoid over-exposure. But with digital sensors, are they filtered for some cameras. In orher words, might UV filters be unnecessary beyond any physical protection affordered.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

True.
But is some cases they are very valuable for front element protection.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The only reason to add a UV filter is for "protection". It serves almost no other purpose on a digital camera. UV filters were used a lot back in the days of film, because many films were overly sensitive to UV light, that made for a sort of bluish haze in images. Folks saw pros using UV on their film cameras a lot, and misinterpreted that they were being used for "protection", which actually wasn't the case.

Today's digital cameras have built in UV filtration, so there really is no need for an additional filter on the front of the lens for this purpose. However, there are also clear filters that strictly only for "protection".

Still - seriously - just how much "protection" do you think a thin piece of glass can afford your lens?

If you don't already have one, your money would be much better spent on a lens hood, instead of a filter. A hood does a better job "protecting" a lens... And a properly fitted one cannot possibly harm, can only improve your images.

But, hey, if you've got money burnin' a hole in your pocket and nuthin' better to do with it... and want to follow the crowd... By all means go ahead and get a good quality, multi-coated UV or clear filter (like the Hoya HD or a B+W MRC). That way it will do minimal harm to your images in most situations.

Depending upon what you shoot, a Circular Polarizer is actually a much more useful filter for digital photography. It can improve images in certain ways that really cannot be done very well in any other way. Many other types of filters can be emulated with software... either in-camera or in post-processing. But not a C-Pol.

However, you really don't want to leave a C-Pol on your lens all the time, either. It "costs" between one and two stops of light... which is not a problem in broad sunshine, but not so great in low light situations. It also has multiple layers of glass, which increase the chance of flare and other issues in certain lighting conditions. But, C-Pol remain the single most useful type of filter for many things: scenic shots, especially, but also sometimes for portraits, macro, architecture and other purposes. They cost more, but get a good one (same brands and multi-coatings as above).

Personally I have UV filters (B+W MRC and Hoya mulit-coated) for most of my lenses. They're stored separately in my camera bag until actually needed... which really isn't very often. Probably less than 1 or 2% of my shots are under conditions such as blowing sand, sea spray, etc., where the filter's protection might actually be helpful. I use C-Pol filters far more often. And I have a couple other types of filters I only use occasionally, but still more often than the UV. The rest of the time... probably 70% of the time or more... my lenses go "naked and filterless". Somehow they've managed to survive (and I've been shooting with some of my current kit for 15 years or more... making between 25,000 to 50,000 images a year with them). I almost always use a lens hood when shooting... And the lens cap protects my lenses very well when they're stored.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

I tend to think polarizing filters for shooting in "snow", which I believe is what Marilyng was planning on doing. They kill the glare much like the reflection on water when used properly.

Has anyone ever tried to snow ski without polarized sunglasses or polarized goggles? Personally, I have no UV filters. I do have various circular polarizing filters though, which I consider worth their weight in gold under certain conditions.

Whichever you decide on, get the highest quality you can afford.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Really?

You might want to go watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds&feature=youtu.be again.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Not from direct impact to the front but protection from everything else - rain, snow, mist, fingerprints, dust, sand, mud, chemicals, careless cleaning, lens cap popping off in your camera bag and a host of others.

Nothing protects you from disaster but a lens hood is a good start.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Hi,
I just read a couple of the responses and I'm wondering, will you be removing the filter prior to shooting? Personally, I always remove the filter with the lens cap. All the filter does is add an extra layer of protection to your lens while its in transport. When you are actually recording light through the lens, the filter, any UV filter, is just another layer of glass the light has to go through. It supplies absolutely no advantage to your camera, that is assuming you're using a digital camera, absolutely none and in some cases it's a bad thing.

Do yourself a favor and buy a cheap UV filter 'cause all it's going to do is add extra protection to the face of your lens. Remove it with the lens cap, you don't need it to filter anything. And if any of your photo buds tell you otherwise, I'd be real suspect of any other advice they give you...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

REALLY.
Personal experience.
It did save a valuable lens from the front element from being damaged as well as the filter rings.
I know there are those who never do anything but have GAS and grand kids but there are times where the filter does provide needed protection in spite of some idiot you tube garbage.
Personal experience trumps the internet any day.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Wow......

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

While there are two schools of thought on the use of UV or 1A filters for the purpose of lens protection, I fall in the camp of yes and I use these. However, since the quality of glass in the filter could have an impact on image quality, I would vote for buying a good quality filter so as to get good glass in front of your front lens element. My Nikon 55-300 DX lens takes a 58mm filter. Spend a little more rather than less and buy from a reputable dealer - Adorama, B&H, etc. i.e., those recommended by fellow UHH members.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Let's agree that in this context, "protect" means to prevent damage from an external cause.

In the well laid out examples above, I submit that NONE of the items listed (with the situational exceptions of chemicals and careless cleaning) actually present a serious threat to damage the front element of a modern lens.

A well made "protective" filter MAY change it's cleaning schedule, maybe... but not protect it.

Why not?

Because NONE of the items listed above will damage the front element under any but the most EXTREME conditions, and even then, RARELY.

MEANWHILE filters filter... that is... they degrade image quality by adding additional surfaces to refract and diffract the light before it reaches the sensor.

People can use them all the want... but NO ONE should delude themselves into thinking that they are "protecting" their lenses by using filters because they aren't.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Really? How can you be so certain the lens would have been damaged at all if the filter had not been there? Use them for impact protection if you wish, that's your choice. Tests exist that show filters don't provide impact protection for front elements. Just because the test results are counter to you personal beliefs does not make them garbage, ... or incorrect. Your anecdotal experience is not proof but opinion.