Need for Filters

What is everybodys opinion for having filters on all lenses. I have some expensive lenses and was wondering if there would be any loss in quality and is everyone using them while shooting.

You will loose some light, I think my Canon UV L-39 sharp cut filters suggest 1 stop possible. I take them off in very low light, else I leave them on. Many feel they are un needed for anything other then special needs.

I dropped my 24-70L without a filter and it is my belief had the UV filter been on the lens the filter ring would not have been crushed thus not needing repair.

Nothing worse then being too afraid to use a lens, if the filters give you confidence so be it and use it. The best lens is the one you use...

It's a heated debate. Some swear by having a filter on every lens "just in case". Some will suggest using a lens hood, which you should be doing anyway..

I don't use protective filters, unless I'll be in an environment that's dusty, salty, raining, or if the front element could get water spray. My hoods live on my lenses, never coming off.

I've seen very cheap filters reduce the optical quality of a lens, and introduce more problems than their worth. If you do go the protective filter route, make sure to spend the extra for a high quality filter thats multi-coated. That being said, I swear by B+W MRC filters. Hoya's multi-coated models are really well received also.

Hope this helps!

I have never used filters for "protection" for the 40 years that I have been using SLR cameras. I have, however, always used quality lens hoods whenever a lens has been out of the camera case. The glass on all my old lenses is in pristine condition, while the outer surfaces have paint worn off due to the extensive use I have put the lenses through. I never get fingerprints on my lenses, because my fingers can't reach around the lens hoods. My lens hoods - because they are mounted on the lenses - provide not only impact/contact protection, but keep stray light from degrading my images.

One of my Nikon F cameras, with a 28mm Nikkor lens mounted, hit the sidewalk after a four-foot drop. It landed right on the edge of the lens hood. The hood crumpled in, and a corner of the body took a ding. I replaced the hood because it still looked like heck after re-bending it (it was a metal Nikon hood), but the body and lens have never needed any repair. The reason for that is that the hood slowed the impact and absorbed a lot of the energy that would have otherwise caused considerable damage I am sure.

Filters add extra glass surfaces that can cause optical problems. Read this article for more information on this subject: http://www.photo.net/m​johnston/column66/

A good quality filter generally costs a lot more than a good quality lens hood. If you are going to lose one or the other in a crash situation, which would you rather buy for a replacement?

Even if you decide to use filters for "protection", please use your lens hoods all the time. You will never be sorry.

thanks for the link, That is an excellent article. I am going to purchase a few filters as I shoot by the Niagara Falls occasionally(mist and all) but will leave them off for other times.

Sounds like a very reasonable decision to me. Just make sure you don't forget to use the lens hoods.

By the way - I don't know if you noticed, but the lens and hood design for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 is, by far, the best design ever. The hood size is maximized for every focal length you choose to use. A lot of zooms have a hood designed primarily for the shortest focal length, and the hood is virtually useless for the longer focal lengths.