UV filters

[jyerxa]

I get a UV filter for every lens I get. Primarily to protect the actual lens. Do you masters use these out of habit? Or do you think that causes any degradation and go with out? I need to get one for my new lens and that lingering thought keeps coming to mind. But the cost of replacing a lens is so worth the $10-20 dollars for that filter. I see terrible degradation to color. But I just play around for the most part anyway.

[huntnphool]

I use B&W Clear UV Haze filters and have not noticed a degradation of colors.

[Bean Counter]

I have two primary lenses: the 70-200 f/4L IS (+/-$1,000) and the 24-70 F/4L IS (+/-$1,200). Both have filters most of the time. The 70-200 has a "cheaper" Hoya HMC Digital UV filter that is "only" $45 and on the 24-70 I have the B+W  mrc CLEAR filter that cost me a whopping $88. My excuse is that I have kids and I also have spastic fingers. Using the filter is more about confidence in using my gear and peace of mind. I don't bother putting a filter on my 50mm f/1.8 because its only a $100 lens.

Even pros are divided on this subject. I think its hard for those of us who use filters to make the case that there is absolutely no image degradation. The question is how bad and how much is the protection worth it? If I am going to make landscape shots with the intent to print big I am absolutely going to take UV filters off. However for day to day shots such as the kids at play or chasing an elk I'll keep it on.

Those in the non-filter camp suggest leaving the lens hood on at all times. Say your camera is on a tripod and a bump or gust of wind knocks it over. Well If the hood is on there it will keep your objective lens from smashing into the pavement/rocks and probably do a better job than the UV filter would. anything that will bust through the filter will likely damage the lens anyway. They also argue that the objective lens is pretty durable and well coated, thus negating the need for a filter.

Back when I had a crop sensor and used the excellent EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, I had a filter on that and would recommend anyone to do so. Two reasons: first, it will keep dust out of the lens. When you watch how it zooms you'll understand and why that's different from other lenses. Second, when shooting ultrawides you're often getting close, as in inches, to your subject. Loose your balance and fall right into your subject and could wind up with a scratch.

If you're concerned about absolute image quality but insist on a prophylactic filter, go with a multicoated clear filter, not a UV. A UV filter is more likely to impart a slight color cast. A clear filter is just a piece of glass that hangs out, waiting for a fight. Buying a multicoated one will minimize the likelihood for flare when shooting in a high contrast scene. Digital cameras aren't sensitive to UV light as was film anyway. It is blocked by your low pass/anti-aliasing filter which sits right in front of the sensor.

I think next lens I'm going to buy is going to be the Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($350). I am NOT going to buy a filter for this. I probably wouldn't have bought a filter for the 70-200 if I had to do it over again. I use the hood all the time because the objective lens practically protrudes and using the hood minimizes flare and seems to yield better contrast.

YMMV.

[jyerxa]

Excellent Answer Bean Counter and very educational.  I got a Nikon EM back when my son was born down in Texas for my first fathers day. It was a really good camera to learn on after being among the 110 people.  And those who knew cameras back then told me about protecting the lens with a UV filter. I was the telephone dude in the panhandle of Texas back then. I really wanted to learn wild life photography and the cost of a good lens compared to the cost of my son and his mother out weighed my need for a good lens. But boy had I had one with that job I would have had tons of wild life photos.

What I remember was how disappointed I was with the blue in the sky when I put that filter on. And I guess I've always felt that way. So I just got a Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF. For me? I absolutely love it! It blows the sox off my kit lens. And kind of like you once in a while I see a big thumb print right smack dab in the middle of the lens. How'd that happen?!  I try to keep the lens glass as perfect as possible. And I have more confidence in cleaning a filter in case I hose it up and scratch it by some fluke. The Less the contact the better for me.

I got my EM when my son was born. I got my VHS camcorder when my daughter was born. Got my D50 when my son was serving over seas. I finally upgraded. Then my HD camcorder when my first granddaughter was born and this new lens when my second granddaughter was born. I think I need to get a lot more grand kids. 

Hey thanks once again Bean Counter.