Knowing that UV filters do degrade IQ, do you still use one?

I usually stick to Hoya Super HMC filters--and I keep them on permanently. The peace of mind I get from having protection makes up for any degradation in my mind. I use hoods, but I don't buy into the wives tale that hoods can protect your glass from any type of damage.

How much is 'cheap'?
Is Hoya HMC series considered 'good enough' or 'cheap'?
I honestly can't afford B+Ws or Hoya HDs..

Hard to tell, I have regular Hoya UVs and CPL, no problem, but they are from local store, not from e-bay. Too muck knock-offs on-line for this products these days.

alpha_1976 wrote in post #12621657
Good filters don't necessarily degrade IQ.

* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.

Mind if I ask, do you personally use UV/protective filter, Frank?

hollis_f wrote in post #12624463
* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.

You just take them off when you know they are going to degrade IQ. I put a HOYA HD on my 24L II (with 5D II) and did pixel peeping = no change in IQ that I could see.

jwicaksana wrote in post #12624502
Mind if I ask, do you personally use UV/protective filter, Frank?

I used to use one all the time - until I took it off my 70-300 DO to use a CPL and forgot to put the UV filter back on and discovered my images improved drastically. I threw that filter away and never bought another until earlier this year. The Hoya video demonstrating their new HD filters persuaded me that they may actually have a protective function, not shattering into a zillion coating-scratching shards at the slightest impact. (It's always amazed me how this behaviour is often interpreted as 'saving the lens' when it is so obviously not).

Earlier this year a friend asked my to take some photos of her doing equine Trec - which stands a chance of throwing up stones. Being as I was going to be using a borrowed lens for some of the indoor stuff, I thought a proper protective filter may be a good idea. However, I've not needed to get it out so far.

So the only protective filter I've used for the last 5 years is the one that Canon built in the 300 f2.8.

Thanks for sharing, Frank.

I use B+W F-Pro UV Filters on all my lenses. I have not experienced any degradation of IQ that i have noticed.

No we have not all spent a lot of money on filters.....I have two Graduated ND filters I use for landscapes and that is it.
Unless your lenses are used in a hostile environment, motocross, ocean with wind...or they are left without caps rolling around in a bag with other equipment really no need for the protective filters.

Yes there are used for ND, polarizers and graduated ND. Everything else can be duplicated in post.