UV filters or not?

[photographyfanatic]

Uv filters all the time or not?

 

[kundalini]

Try selecting "New Posts" on the top menu bar. The third thread (ATM) has already been started today.... again.

 

[Jaszek]

isn't there a thread like that everyday? lol

 

[photographyfanatic]

so what's the answer?

 

[bdavison]

No

 

[CxThree]

it all depends on your viewpoint. Some people use UV filters to protect their lens. Others feel the lens hood is enough. Think about it and make your own decision. You will find people on both sides of this conversation. It ultimately comes down to your thoughts.

 

[KmH]

it all depends on your viewpoint. Some people use UV filters to protect their lens. Others feel the lens hood is enough. Think about it and make your own decision. You will find people on both sides of this conversation. It ultimately comes down to your thoughts.

and how much money you have to waste. Don't forget to think about whether you mind some degradation of your image quality or not.

 

[Joves]

UVs on digital no. On film sometimes. For protection of glass Clears. Also wether you need protection is something you have to determine according to how rough you are on your equipment and what the conditions you shoot in. For me it is a nobrainer, I use the clears. Nikon,B+W and, Hoya all make the clears. B&H carries them.

 

[Garbz]

UV for protection yes. Money is not wasted when it stops something that would otherwise cause a huge scratch of corrosive crap to be spilt on the front of your lens.

Degradation? Pfff. People use cheap filters and complain about degradation. Use semi decent ones and it's a non-issue.

 

[CxThree]

I have to agree with Garbz. Invest in a good quality brand like Hoya or spend a little more for B&W. Both will provide protection without degrading your shots.

 

[Montana]

If I were to buy protection filters for all of my lenses, I could buy another lens instead. I use hoods only.

 

[flea77]

I leave a UV on most of my lenses all the time, multi-coated Hoyas, not only do they protect against flying debris, fingerprints, dust, rain, etc, but the thing I like the best is when the filter gets dirty and I have to clean it (which will happen to everyone unless you shoot in a clean room) I am cleaning off a filter and not the actual lens. This means there will never, ever, ever, be cleaning marks on my lenses. If a scratch happens because I didnt get all the sand off before I wiped it with my cloth, bummer, $30 filter down the drain, $1000 lens just like new!

Allan

 

[Pure]

in a dirty, dusty, dry place? or where something may hit/touch your front element, then yes.

 

[Garbz]

If I were to buy protection filters for all of my lenses, I could buy another lens instead. I use hoods only.

If I were to buy protection filters for all of my lenses, I could buy another lens instead. I use hoods only.

I used to think like that. Then one day the filter prevented me from NEEDING to buy a new lens, when the old one smacked full force against a cliff face. Threads bent, element shattered, no damage to lens. $50 well spent on a multicoated UV filter, Instead of $600 on a lens.

But what kind of lens can you get for $400 anyway?

 

[photogincollege]

For me, never. But The only 2 lenses I have right now were around 100 each, (18-70 and 50mm) So its not really worth it. If I had a 600-2000 dollar lens, you bet your butt lol.