Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I think the UV is all you need. With sports, you’re using a fast shutter speed to freeze action. A ND or CP will only slow you down. If your camera has filter settings like my Olympus does, then you could use the “vivid” filter. This was suggested at a sports photography workshop I went to.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I agree!

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

With digital photography I see no reasons to use a UV filter.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Shooting sports I rarely use any filter at all.

ND of any significant strengths would be completely counter-productive.... I'd rather keep my ISO as low as possible and the last thing I want is a filter that's "soaking up" a number of stops of light.

CPL aren't a lot better... the new High Transmissive type are better than standard, blocking less light.... but even the HT cost around 1.5 stops. Standard type CPL can cost more than two stops, at their strongest setting.

Digital cameras generally don't need UV filtration. Might be a little helpful when there's a bluish cast over a distant scene... but that's not something I need to worry about when shooting sports.

I have UV filters for "protection" against blowing sand or paintballs and such... but I only install them on lenses when they might actually be needed. The lens hood and lens caps do a better job protecting my lenses, than some thin piece of glass ever could.

In the end UV are my least frequently used type of filter. CPL are my most frequently used... but almost never when shooting sports.

While shooting sports I'm often working in difficult light, against the light, in backlit situations. Any filter often will cause problems when doing that.. adding flare effects (veiling, ghosts).... amping up any chromatic aberrations... possibly even interferring with autofocus that I need to perform at it's best possible. And I don't have time to stop and remove filters. So my lenses are filterless most of the time... nearly 100% of the time when shooting sports.

hj Loc: Florida

Thanks everyone for the responses. Especially I like amfoto1's response above. Guess I will be going filterless on the soccer field but with my lens hood.

pbradin Loc: Florida

I stopped using a "protective" UV filter a long time ago. I always use my lens hood which protects the front lens element from bumps and scratches and I shoot in some particularly nasty environments like the arena floor during rodeos or track side in the rain at a sports car race. Never had any lens damage, although I did lose a camera body to a large bull once when he stepped on my original Digital Rebel. The 70-200 f2.8 lens (pre-IS) came through just fine though. I find ways to sacrifice my own body to protect the camera/lens, because my basic philosophy is that the camera is more valuable than I am (and yes, I know I need help on the self-worth thing). For car shows I use a CP all the time to cut down reflections and/or darken windows and outdoor scenics for the classic blue sky/white cloud stuff. Again, I don't use filters for "protection" and never will. The more pieces of glass that light travels through, the more the possibility for some image degradation, however slight that may be.