UV Filter on Pro Glass... Well, Do You?

[kundalini]

This poll is leaning towards responses from experienced photographers in an effort to educate us less learned. However, all responses are valuable.

I ask because with my first lens purchases, I put a UV filter on all of them. It was a habit carried over from film days of long ago. However, once I started buying quality glass for my dSLR and after reading some of the disadvantages of IQ, reflections, flare etc. I have not used them with the Gold Rings. I want to get the best possible image from what the manufacturer designed, especially when I drop 4 digits on the cost of the lens.

99.5% of the time I have the hard plastic/metal lens hood attached/extended and if I move from my shooting spot, the lens cap goes on. So for protection in a normal environment, it is a non-issue to me. The only reason I can think of to use one is in harsh conditions such as dusty, sandy, wet or in a thicket to protect the front element. Okay, add hazy to the list, but I think PS is a more likely solution if needed.

So, the question is:

Once you started buying Pro glass *read Gold Ring and “L” as examples * do you or do you not slap a UV / Clear filter as a protective measure? If so, please say why.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I used to all the time, but the hood provides enough protection, and I got tired of the flare. I only put one on under the worst conditions.

 

[keith204]

Same with Switch. I used to all the time but realized there is a bit of softness that came with all my filters. Hoods do help a bunch.

Now, I keep one 77mm and one 58mm UV filter in my bag only for risky conditions.

 

[icassell]

I always do, but I'll admit that it's a habit I acquired early in my 35mm days -- a filter is alot less costly to replace than a lens. I'm not sure that's a good reason. I don't put filters in front of my expensive progressive eyeglass lenses. I will say that I often have a CP mounted and then I wouldn't use a UV filter anyway.

 

[Mike_E]

Only when there is a better than remote chance of damage or getting the glass dirty.

 

[soylentgreen]

I used them all of the time. I removed them for a bit to check IQ degradation and personally did not see any negligable difference. Maybe a little softness, but unsharp mask will fix that. I mostly photograph wildlife so atmospheric condition is an issue for protection more than anything. Dust, pollen, bugs, etc. wreak havoc on my 400mm. Dunno if they make a protective filter for that monster. :mrgreen: Do not have any issues with flare or whatnot because i do try to keep the light behind me. Guess it has become habit since I feel safer cleaning my filter than the front element.

 

[SpeedTrap]

They have saved at least one of my lenses, and this happend in a situation where I thought there would be no risk. I would rather break a $100 filter than a $2000 lens anyday.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I'm the other side of that. Why buy a $2000 lens and then put a cheap piece of glass in front of it?

Hood only.

 

[sabbath999]

Last year, I bought a new 70-200 2.8 VR. Dropped $1700 on the puppy with shipping and taxes.

First thing I did was put a UV filter on it.

Went to a zoo to shoot some shots, slapped the lens hood on and started walking around. When I got to the zebras, one bit another one on the ass, and the one that got bit jumped and stomped, right in a big puddle of mud.

Pfwap! Mud came flying and I got splattered.

Sure enough, one big semi-solid glob of mud slammed into my lens right exactly dead center (lens hood and all).

I tell you what... I would have absolutely puked on the spot had that gritty, grimy, zebra peed in mud been slobbered all over the front of my brand new lens instead of some $100 filter.

I come from a sports news background, where I have had my camera covered in all kinds of stuff including spit, blood, rain and an ocean of sweat from some athlete running into me.

I always, always, always shoot with a filter. Always.

I use the best one I can find (B&W).

 

[Mystwalker]

If you are a pro and require shots to be the absolute sharpest, I can understand not wanting to use filter - I've never seen degrade in quality with filter myself, but I'm printing 4x6 and 5x7s only.

I order my B&W 010 MRC UV filter at same time that I order lens. $80 is not that much when the lens cost $1000+.

 

[kundalini]

Ooops, I forgot to vote.

I gave my reasons why not earlier, but I do keep a UV filter handy. I was a Boy Scout once.

 

[icassell]

Wish I had a video of that zebra scene ...

 

[Peanuts]

Always

Why? I'm clumsy

 

[tirediron]

I used to, however I've now switched over to B+W clear glass. No detectable impact on the image, and the same protection.

 

[S2K1]

I used to all the time, but the hood provides enough protection, and I got tired of the flare. I only put one on under the worst conditions.

Exactly the same here! I hated the flare. I have lens hoods for all my lenses now to help protect them.