To filter or not to filter?

So as I am sure many of you have experienced mixed views on throwing a UV filter on a lens. I was always raised on the idea your an idiot for purchasing a lens and not protecting it with a filter. A few months back I got to talking with a guy that had been in the camera industry his entire life and spent the last half of his career working for a high end camera glass manufacturer. We started talking about the industry and he was talking of how he felt so bad for camera store owners with the loss of physical film sales and now they make so little off of the camera sales themselves they are forced to push everything else to stay in business. He mentioned this is why the idea of needing a UV filter is pushed so hard because the big dollar filters are one of the only ways for them to make a decent buck with camera and lens sales.
His points were basically that as for image quality there are typically more issues by adding a filter into the system than it actually takes away and as for protection, any force that would seriously scratch a lens would most likely crack the filter and possibly cause the same or additional damage to the lens itself. Also there is the fact that either way any likely damage to the lens would not be enough to be recognizable whatsoever in the images. He talked about taking returned pieces of glass when they were bored and seeing what abuse they could put them through. Said in high quality lenses the glass could be hit repeatedly with a hammer and there would be no visible change within its images.
I am curious of the people who have heard these things in the industry do you guys still filter? I just purchases a new Canon L 70-200 F/2.8 and after that purchase I have mixed feelings on filtering. I have heard from other sources the same thing this man told me so I believe it however after blowing that big chunk of money I still have mixed feelings on the issue. Opinions?

I only use a filter when I need a filter, like a CPL. Film was sensitive to UV, digital sensors not so much.

Well, I personally agree with the guy. I have gone filterless for over 30 years (apart from odd occasions when I need a CPL or ND) and, despite treating my gear roughly and banging my lenses around (two older ones have dents in them) I have never managed to mark a front element in any way. They are tough and most stuff just bounces off them, filters on the other hand are very thin pieces of glass which break easily.

There was a thread on here just a week or so ago, where the OP had dropped his camera bag a couple of feet. The lens would have been fine normally, however the filter broke and a sharp shard of glass from it scratched the front lens element. That is certainly not the first time I have heard of that, in fact I hear more of that happening than a filter possibly saving a lens from damage.

I always use a hood, they do far more for protection than a filter and have the benefit of improving the image quality, as opposed to potentially decreasing it as can happen with a filter.

It is all down to personal preference though, if you feel better using a filter then use one. My opinion (and it is just my opinion) is that they are a waste of money and can do more harm than good. I have saved enough money over the years, by not using filters, to pay for a couple of very nice lenses.

As someone wrote in a blog post I read somewhere, it makes no sense to pay top dollar for the finest optical quality lenses, only to turn around and put something else in front of it

For protection: lens hoods.

jimd118 wrote in post #14295624
A few months back I got to talking with a guy that had been in the camera industry his entire life and spent the last half of his career working for a high end camera glass manufacturer. We started talking about the industry and he was talking of how he felt so bad for camera store owners with the loss of physical film sales and now they make so little off of the camera sales themselves they are forced to push everything else to stay in business. He mentioned this is why the idea of needing a UV filter is pushed so hard because the big dollar filters are one of the only ways for them to make a decent buck with camera and lens sales.

His points were basically that as for image quality there are typically more issues by adding a filter into the system than it actually takes away and as for protection, any force that would seriously scratch a lens would most likely crack the filter and possibly cause the same or additional damage to the lens itself. Also there is the fact that either way any likely damage to the lens would not be enough to be recognizable whatsoever in the images. He talked about taking returned pieces of glass when they were bored and seeing what abuse they could put them through. Said in high quality lenses the glass could be hit repeatedly with a hammer and there would be no visible change within its images.

That fella's information is right on the money.

I still have all of the cameras and lenses I bought in the mid 1960s (and used very heavily) and since then and every lens still has nearly pristine glass in them. I have never used a filter for "protection" of my lenses, though I occasionally use a filter for the effect it can provide. I do use a rigid lens hood (designed for the lens) on every lens that's out of the camera case.

Not

You know, this subject comes up about three times a week.... And there's even a sticky about it at the top of the forum.

There was an example of a lens on here recently... I believe it was a 70-200/2.8 but am not certain... that was damaged by the broken filter when it was dropped. The filter took a gouge out of the coatings on the front element of the lens. The filter broke when the lens cap was driven into it and the hood was on the lens, but in the stored position.

Would it have fared better without a filter? Who knows. Unless we are willing to buy 1000 lenses and do drop tests with them, it's pretty hard to prove anything one way or another. Even they, there are a ton of variables.

I used to use UV filters pretty regularly with film.... because I was shooting at high altitude and a lot of film is overly senstitive to UV. Learned some hard lessons then about how badly cheap filters effected image quality.

I stopped using filters very often when I "went digital" in 2004. Lens hoods and lens caps provide better protection than some thin piece of glass ever can.

Still, there are times and places to use them... and I do.... But most of the time my lenses are stark naked and the filters stored in a neat little stack in my camera bag.

This has been debated to death here. Personally i think UV filter is useless. all it does is degrading IQ. Just use hood at all times.

cpl/nd and the like is a diff story.....

Nope!

http://www.lensrentals​.com …0/front-element-scratches

I'm a fan of hoods......

The only filters I own are circular polarizer and neutral density. You do not NEED any other filters!

<RANT ON! (and not directed to anyone in particular)>

I'm so DAMNED tired of hearing about this fracking desire to "protect the lens".

I've been shooting since 1973 while in the surf, desert, plains and rain forests of Central and South America and I have NEVER had a moment where I thought "DAMN! IF ONLY I HAD A UV FILTER ON THE FRACKING LENS!!!"

Some slim assed filter will not "protect the lens". If you want to protect the lens USE YOUR LENS CAP and watch where the lens in pointing - like muzzle control on a rifle! That is what the lens cap is for, by the way!

If you're a klutz and frack up a lens, trust me, you'll quickly learn how to get your head out of your ass, after all, those len$e$ are expen$ive.

<Rant OFF!>

Go shoot and stop worrying about trivial ****!

I believe in protecting my glass. So I always use a lens hood. ALWAYS protect your lenses with a hood. Proective filters are a total waste of money.

I use a filter on my video camera when I ride my bicycle, but for my still camera there is no filter. If I'm standing still why do I need to protect the front (unless on a windy, sandy beach)?

This threads are weekly threads here.
UV filter is useless on DSLR, use clear protective filters if you need to protect front element or and seal weather resistant L.

I used to be a 'filter' person, but after reading 1001 filter threads on POTN, I've been happily 'filterless' for quite a while now