bleirer

I'm not the OP but after reading the responses and the articles I went with the Nikon clear filter and added the polarizer for good measure. About $200 for the pair.i guess I'll put the clear on when bushwacking, hiking with loose footing, at the geyser basin, etc. And i got a hood too, and crack and dent insurance!

Jimbo1947

Many years ago I did manage to break a UV filter on a lens, but I don't think the lense would have been damaged as the front element was somewhat recessed any way. I recently purchased a used Pentax HD 55-300 zoom with a Tiffen UV filter. Although most photos appeared to be pretty good, I was frustrated trying to take a good picture if the full moon the past two months. Th IQ of the moon was terrible, everything blurry. Then I removed the filter and bingo, what an improvement. Apparently filters thet won't cause image degradation are very expensive, but still cheaper that a quality lens. If the front element of the lens is recessed, or a lens hood is in place there should be little risk of lense damage. If the front element of the lens is immediately under the filter, then a direct impact will probably break the filter and may damage the lense element anyway. I'm going to forgo the use of filters and just try to be carefull.

wet3843

I am a firm believer of using the filter for protection. I was in Paris on vacation and when changing lens I dropped it and the filter shattered but the lens was not damaged. Cheap protection.
I have never taken two exact photos, one with the filter and one with out, and compared the results but I can't believe the image with the filter would be degraded that much.

tschuler

Because the vast majority of my photography is landscape, I have a CP on all my lenses. I have had 2 of the filters broken when my camera has been in the overhead bin on airplanes. There was no damage to the lenses and the lens cap was on the camera in both situations. The filters are all Nikon branded for Nikon cameras.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Think about this: a simple lens will have at least three glass elements within, zoom lenses often contain over a dozen elements. What impact could one more piece of glass possibly make? I rarely ever use UV filters, but degradation is certainly not the reason!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

It is not the number of elements that determines the optical affect of a filter, it is the optical formula of the lens. Any filter that was not a part of the original formula I can guarentee will affect the overall image quality. Whether or not it is easily discernable is a different question. But there is no question that the image is affected. And the image will be more affected by a poorly made filter than a well made filter. As far as the filter providing protection, sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. That becomes a personal decision. My personal findings say a hood and lens cap protects a lens and/or a filter better than the filter itself. If a filter breaks inward, there is still a very good chance of the shards scratching the lense. A lense cap is usually made of sturdy plastic and sometimes metal and usually much more durable than glass and glass coatings whether it is a filter or not. And the hood will usually protect better than a filter because they also are usually made of sturdier materials than glass.

There are times a filter is called for. For me it is when I cannot achieve the image I want without modifying the light that the lens is capturing. That also means, unless I am modifying the light, which is not all than often, I shoot without a filter.

Bipod

No optical system is as perfect as a thin, flat, coated piece of glass:
* No aberrations
* No distortion
* Very little tinting
* Very little absorption of light
* Very large aperture (fast and low diffraction)
* No moving parts

The commonest types of lens damage are:
* Bent filter ring
* Coating on front surface worn from cleaning
* Scratches on front surface
* Damage from moisture: spotting, fungus

Keeping a filter on the lens at all times helps prevent all these
types of damage. Ask yourself: would you rather wear out the
coating on a $20 filter or on the front element of your $2000 lens?

All lenses are a compromise. Adding corrective elements to a simple
lens can reduce chromatic aberration, but at the price of increasing
absorption and tinting. Zoom lenses are a big compromise. But
the humble UV filter is a diffraction-limited optical system with near
perfect properties.

If a UV or plain coated glass filter cost $2000, everyone would want one.
But because it costs $20, they think it will degrade their image.. Go figure.

Sure, it adds two air-glass surfaces. So buy a coated one. But the very people
who object to the idea of adding two surfaces will happily buy a zoom lens
with 20 groups = 40 surfaces. Like I said: go figure. Human nature is not
rational--especially not with a head full of ideas that came from advertising.

Always using a lens hood is a great idea. But a lens sometimes cat get scratched
while putting it in the camera bag (especially if the bag has a zipper with a metal
grab tab). Few of us have camera bags large enough to allow a hood to be
left on the lens.

As I often say about politics: it's not about ideology, it's about outcomes.
There are far more photographers who wish they'd kept a UV (or plain coated
glass) filter on the lens than who wish they hadn't.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

A lens filter is not going to prevent fungus from forming in a lens.
How is lens glass going to get scratched from bag zippers or metal pull tabs if it has a lens cap on it?

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I'm in the keep-a-filter-on-the-front-of-a-lens-at-all-times camp, but I believe, with digital cameras it should be a clear filter. When I buy a lens, I also buy a clear filter for it unless I have a spare. The filter has saved me a coupe of times where its threads were damaged, and not the lens. I also do not like having to clean the front element much, which is also something the filter prevents. YMMV. Best of luck.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Any light coming in at an angle less than 90° to the flat surface of a filter starts to be broken up into its spectrum. The first surface of a filter is also the first surface of a prism. No matter how thin the filter, no matter how good the coatings, it is the first surface of a prism. This is why a filter affects the corners more than the center of the lens. And it is because light is bent from its original path as it goes through glass that a camera lens even works. Optical formulas take that light is split by the first lense element and bend it around with all the other elements to recombine that spectrum together at the image plane. This is why no matter how good the filter, it will alter the image because it is not a part of the original lens formulation. My question would be; Why buy an expensive lens and then degrade the image, even if only a little, with a filter if you don't need to modify the properties of the light being captured?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

This is all wonderful discussion for the optical physics classroom. Now, on the practical side, can one see the difference between a photograph taken of a scene with and then without an optically superior filter. I doubt it.
--Bob

Bipod

A filter helps. It prevents moisture from condensing on the front surface
of the front element, and also stops splashes and raindrops.

Lens caps have a way of coming off. Some are better than others.
But I've never yet had a filter unscrew itself.