Filter or no filter

[Garbz]

I don't think there has every been any debate on the effect. A UV filter is not needed in digital photography as the CCD isn't adversely affected like film and won't turn your image blue.

The debate has only ever been about protection.

 

[hchristensen]

I agree. That's why I said "the debate about UV filter usage" not "the debate about UV effects on digital photography". Some people want them to protect their expensive lenses, other think they will adversely affect the image quality. At that point, it becomes a personal preference.

 

[Agoraphobic]

I used to have a UV on both of my lenses because I was told that it would protect the lens. I've recently taken them off and left them off because I was seeing a lot of ghosting with my 55-200. I have a brand new Hoya HMC Super 58mm that I bought with my 50 f/1.4 sitting on my desk in the case. Plus, on most lenses, the front element is the cheapest piece of glass to replace/repair.

 

[Garbz]

Plus, on most lenses, the front element is the cheapest piece of glass to replace/repair.

Lens repair is never cheap. You'd be up for $400 at least for a front element of a semi decent lens. Also good luck to the rest of your lens. If what ever hit it was strong enough to break your front element I'd place a safe bet that your AF or zooming system will be screwed too depending on lens design.

Oh btw a quick gloss over Nikons website shows that half of their lenses have either aspherical or otherwise special (ED, N coated) front elements. These would be the most expensive to replace.