JMCPHD Loc: Maine

I am new to digital photography but have some history with film photography. In the past I typically had a UV or skylight filter on my lenses especially when doing outdoor shooting which was most common.
I understand that digital sensors don’t have a sensitivity to UV that was expected in film.
I am usin Nikon D7100 and have several lenses.
I am interested in opinions about filters advantages and disadvantages for mostly outdoor shooting thinking about use for lens protection, circular polarizors etc.

twowindsbear

These are my 'go to' filters:

Circular polarizing filter - to darken a clear, blue sky & to remove reflections from most shiny surfaces which will intensify the colors.

Graduated neutral density - to balance an overly bright area, such as the sky, with less bright areas in the scene.

BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten

Basically same here except I use use a solid nd filter because that’s what I have for now. I also have a uv filter I use for windy beach days, motocross, civil war re-enacts etc. If I don’t have a specific need for a filter I don’t use one. I use the lens hood/cap for lens protection. Ymmv.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

As above.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

My lenses all have "UV" filters on them for the protection they provide. I keep those on 95% of the time. I also use a CP and ND filter, but never use more than one at a time. All are B+W products. Additionally, I also use X1, K2, and 25A filters, but not for digital.
--Bob

broncomaniac Loc: Lynchburg, VA

I have two amo cases full of filters. One set for each caliber of lens. My lenses range from 52 to 72mm thread size thus I have quite a few. I use them for a multitude of purposes. My most common is a CPL. I'd prefer to clean a filter than one of my lenses. This practice keeps my lenses pristine. I prefer hama and Hoya products.

Further reading: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm

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

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FILTER MADE THAT IMPROVES IMAGE QUALITY. AND THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER DIRECTION TO GO.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ditto.

alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

This is an oft repeated, specious comment ...

The obvious disproof of the statement is using a GREEN or ORANGE filter with a panchromatic film (that's a common B&W film type for all of you who never took pictures with anything other than a digital camera) ...

... My preference was to use a Green filter which BOTH darkens a pale blue sky AND balances the foliage relative to the 'other colors' which may be present ... I suspect that Orange filters were more popular because in addition to darkening a pale blue sky they presumably help with lightening variations and/or blemishes in skin tones!?!

Regardless, I am in the camp which blissfully believes that a UV filter does NOT adversely affect image quality UNLESS IT IS DIRTY OR DAMAGED (two factors which would adversely affect the image if those conditions were present on the surface of the lens's front element!

Using a replaceable, sacrificial filter is an option which probably depends on how nice you want the front element of your lens to look in a few years.

BTW. The front element of my pre-War Leitz SUMMAR lens is still pristine thanks to the great care of the first two owners AND the fact that I put a filter on it as soon as I acquired the lens ...

On the other hand, a pre-War SUMMARIT which I had very briefly showed the signs of having been constantly cleaned (it was nonetheless a remarkable lens since I never used it in situations where there might be a conflict with 'side' light) ...

I have seen 50+ year old, coated lenses which were always protected and whose front element looks as good as the day when it left the factory ...

... And, I have seen similar lenses (specifically, 50mm f1.4 Nikkor in both cases) which clearly showed signs of having been wiped-off umpteen-times.

FYI. Some people who do use a filter-for-protection take them off the lens if they feel they are capturing a truly critical image ...

The test which YOU should consider is taking the same 'object' with-and-without a filter & comparing the quality of the images and then deciding if there is any-or-no-significant difference.

leftj Loc: Texas

Nope, there are two other directions to go. One is to deteriorate the image if a low quality filter is used and the other is no noticeable difference if a high quality filter is used. I've been all over the place in my head on this issue but finally started using Breakthrough Photography filters and there is no discernible difference in the image quality. There are certainly other high quality filters besides Breakthrough, I just happen to really like their product and their appreciation of my business.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

A lot of people like circular polarizers for digital cameras. Many people like to have a filter on their lens for "protection". In this case, "many" is less than "a lot" (but that's my opinion). The "protection" filter is a topic which, as you will have noticed by this time, has strong proponents and strong opponents.

Personally, I think there's a middle ground. There are valid reasons to use a filter for protection. There are also valid reasons to avoid filters if possible. So, the real advice as to whether to use a protection filter or not should be "it depends".

A filter will protect your lens from things like blowing dust and salt spray and inquisitive dog noses. A filter will not protect your lens from impacts by moderate to heavy items (e.g. stones as opposed to grains of sand). https://petapixel.com/2015/08/31/photo-mythbusters-how-much-do-uv-filters-actually-protect-your-lenses/ (a 20 minute video). Using a filter runs the risk of added flare (unwanted internal reflections) if a strong light falls on your lens/filter. The environment you are working in should be a major consideration as to whether to use a filter for protection. Personally, I use filters for protection for hazards denumerated above. I use circular polarizers for the effect they bring to the image. When I don't need a filter for a specific purpose, I remove it.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Not true, digital sensors are sensitive to UV, but much less so than film. All filters for film are just as suitable for digital!!

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

I have UV and CPL filters on all my lenses. I will use variable ND's sometimes in bright sunny days when at water falls. Yes, the VND is stacked on the UV and CPL. Vignetting can happen, so you need to frame your image to either use vignetting or so that you can crop out the vignetting.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

As you can see, many Hoggers use filters religiously. Some do not. Those that do not say that a lens hood is just as good protection. Having used filters for decades and now having a lens without, I cannot say which is better as I have never had an accident that threatened the lens. As for image quality, good polarizers can help, bad ones can hurt. Colored ones are unnecessary with all the capabilities of post processing, even with just jpegs.