Poll: do you use protection?

[ksmattfish]

A bit of advice beginning photogs often hear is to get UV or skylight filters to protect their lenses. When I started out creating this pile of gear I call a camera collection I always purchased a UV filter with the lens. At some point my photo mentors convinced me that maybe keeping it on all the time wasn't such a great idea, and besides it was getting too expensive to make sure every lens/camera had one, so I stopped buying them, and eventually stopped using them at all. Eight years later, and I have yet to damage a lens in a manner where the filter would have protected it (knock on wood).

I don't think it's a right or wrong issue, just curious to see what people think.

 

[Alex_B]

on those lenses which do not have a front glass for protection, i always use a B + W pro UV filter.

I realised at least it does no harm ... when i experience flare problems or reflections in difficult light, i take the filter off.. but just to realise that it makes no difference.

 

[Lol999]

I use them all the time, especially on my 28mm "street lens" that gets bumped and barged when I'm in crowds. I also leave the dedicated metal lenshood on for extra protection.

Cheers, Lol

 

[Alex_B]

forgot to mention, I also use the lens hood on usually ... and when ready for shooting I might walk around for hours with no lens-cap on. so I feel safer with lens hood and UV filter

I often get some dirt on my UV filter and I am much more relaxed when cleanign the filter than when cleaning my front lens

 

[dewey]

I only use filters to get an effect... makes no sense to me to put $80 worth of glass on the front of a $1500 lens. I'd not be happy with the filter breaking and scrathing the lens either. Just my .02.

 

[Alex_B]

I'd not be happy with the filter breaking and scrathing the lens either. Just my .02.

That would be a catastrophy, that is for sure

But filters are just so convenient when branches full of leaves, sand and whatever get in contact with your lens

 

[Big Mike]

I don't think I even own a UV filter.

I certainly don't want to spend an extra $30-$80 for each lens. If I'm outside, I probably have a hood and/or a polarizer filter on...so I would have taken off a UV filter anyway.

I can foresee some situations, like Lol999 mentioned, that I would prefer to have some extra protection...but it would be rather uncommon for me.

I read an article somewhere...that explained just how hard & scratch resistant lenses are these days. Most of the time...you would have a hard time actually damaging the lens. A lot of people get what they thing are scratches...but they are actually just marks that can be cleaned off with a bit of elbow grease.

I did drop a camera onto the front once, it fell out of a truck when I opened the door. It has a polarizer on the front and the filter was wrecked. Did it save the lens? I can't say.

 

[Digital Matt]

The only time I use a UV filter is if I'm at the beach and the sand is blowing. It's very easy to scratch the lens. Other than that, it's just a pain, and too expensive for every lens. , not to mention when I want to use a polarizer, or a graduated neutral density filter, it's just in the way and I waste valuable time.

 

[fmw]

Sorry, I no longer comment on the subject of filters.

 

[CMan]

Most of my shooting goes on outdoors, so I usually have a polarizer on the camera.

If I'm shooting anything indoors, it doesn't matter because it's unlikely I'm going to be doing anything that would damage the lens.

So, I voted yes because the polarizer could count for that.