Clear vs UV Filter for protecting lens

[ahmads]

I will be ordering a protective filter for a newly purchased Tamron 17-50.

I am considering the Hoya 67mm DMC PRO1 Clear Protector Digital Filter.

http://www.adorama.com/HY67CP1.html

Would this be a good option or is it better to go with one of the UV filters. Specifically which one. My budget is roughly $50.

[jra]

The clear should work just fine. Really no reason to go with a UV filter specifically on digital.

[rklepper]

I would skip the Hoya and get a good filter. Nothing will ruin a photo quicker than a cheap filter. Get a multicoated filter, either a B+W or a Heliopan. Rather than buy a cheap one I would save and get a good one.

[Don Powell]

Another option is to not use a protective filter at all. I only use a filter when I need the effects of that filter. In more than thirty years of doing this, I have never scratched the front element. I ALWAYS USE A LENS HOOD! I do remember once having an important shot ruined by flare, because of a filter. When using film, there is a much greater need to use filters.

[SkipD]

Another option is to not use a protective filter at all. I only use a filter when I need the effects of that filter. In more than thirty years of doing this, I have never scratched the front element. I ALWAYS USE A LENS HOOD! I do remember once having an important shot ruined by flare, because of a filter. When using film, there is a much greater need to use filters.Ditto.

[PetKal]

I have permanently mounted B&W UV filters on all of my lenses. In my 60 years of photography, I have never had a mar or a damage to any of my lenses as a result. All of my lenses are mint fresh, like new. I had to replace a couple of filters though.
I only use lens hoods when warranted by light conditions....that's what the hoods are for....to keep parasitic, stray light out of the lens.

[condyk]

The Pro1's are good filters ... waste of money IMO but if you want one then it will do the job.