What's a good protective lens filter?

I took my 70d and two lenses to my local store for an MFA. The guy there said my filters were crap and too reflective, that they're basically film filters. I have a canon uv on one and a tiffen uv on another. He said he would recommend changing and they'd be about $30 each for 58mm. I don't know what brand. I figured I'd look myself to see what I can get.

So what would you recommend? What's a good filter for a decent price? I'd prefer not to spend a ton on each filter. I'd like to get one for each of my lenses.

Thanks.

Expect lots if different opinions, but I say no filter is best, buy lens hoods instead.

2nd vote. No filter. Hood.

Thirding that!

I never waste money on filters either, but use hoods all the time as they are better protection and improve the image quality rather than (potentially) reducing it.

If it makes you feel better, using filters is OK but make sure you get very good ones, the cheaper they are the more chance they will spoil your image quality.

B+W MRC, the Clear kind.

As for hoods being enough, well, last Tuesday the cap came off the lens while it was in my pack, it had the hood on, but were it not for the filter, the lens woulda taken a scratch when I pulled the camera out. The filter seems to have survived, thank God.

I'd rather spend an extra 70-100 bux and have peace of mind. But you decide for yourself.

No filter - hood.

timrocks311 wrote in post #16797084
I took my 70d and two lenses to my local store for an MFA. The guy there said my filters were crap and too reflective, that they're basically film filters. I have a canon uv on one and a tiffen uv on another. He said he would recommend changing and they'd be about $30 each for 58mm. I don't know what brand. I figured I'd look myself to see what I can get.

So what would you recommend? What's a good filter for a decent price? I'd prefer not to spend a ton on each filter. I'd like to get one for each of my lenses.

Thanks.

He's just trying to suck some money out of you. Granted, Tiffen filters aren't exactly industry leading, but whatever he's selling you for $30 certainly isn't going to be any better. Take the filters off and use your lens hood.

Once again - No filter and hood. Use a filter only for polarizer or ND.

Alveric wrote in post #16797189
As for hoods being enough, well, last Tuesday the cap came off the lens while it was in my pack, it had the hood on, but were it not for the filter, the lens woulda taken a scratch when I pulled the camera out. The filter seems to have survived, thank God.

Surely it was scratched though?

You say if it hadn't been there the lens would have been scratched, so surely whatever it was that the filter stopped from scratching the lens, must have scratched the filter instead?

If you insist on a protective filter, I agree with...

Alveric wrote in post #16797189
B+W MRC, the Clear kind.

Under most circumstances, I use only a hood for protection.

sandpiper wrote in post #16797225
Surely it was scratched though?

You say if it hadn't been there the lens would have been scratched, so surely whatever it was that the filter stopped from scratching the lens, must have scratched the filter instead?

No, it wasn't. Just checked it again and it's fine. But I did poke the front element with an object, which I can't remember now if it was my own finger or something metallic. Again, I am thankful the filter was on. I have filters on all my lenses (except for the elcheapo EF-S ones) and when I purchase a lens I always add the price of the filter to the overall cost. To me it's not a 'waste' of money, but insurance. Miserliness can be, and many times is, costly.

no filter, use hood.

Alveric wrote in post #16797282
No, it wasn't. Just checked it again and it's fine. But I did poke the front element with an object, which I can't remember now if it was my own finger or something metallic. Again, I am thankful the filter was on. I have filters on all my lenses (except for the elcheapo EF-S ones) and when I purchase a lens I always add the price of the filter to the overall cost. To me it's not a 'waste' of money, but insurance. Miserliness can be, and many times is, costly.

It's not "miserliness". I don't want to degrade the image with another piece of glass. Even the best glass will cause some degradation because it's not a part of the optical formula. In 35 years I have only 1 broken front element. I never use protective filters but lenses are always capped when not in use and hoods used most of the time.

Camera salesmen have always recommended filters to increase their sales. It used to make some sense in the film days because a good UV filter improved some images as well as providing some protection. Digital doesn't need a UV filter but salespeople continue to recommend protective filters much like they try to sell you extended warranties and other add-ons.

Alveric wrote in post #16797282
No, it wasn't. Just checked it again and it's fine. But I did poke the front element with an object, which I can't remember now if it was my own finger or something metallic. Again, I am thankful the filter was on. I have filters on all my lenses (except for the elcheapo EF-S ones) and when I purchase a lens I always add the price of the filter to the overall cost. To me it's not a 'waste' of money, but insurance. Miserliness can be, and many times is, costly.

Not using filters is not an economic decision. I have a stack of B&W MRC 77mm UV filters. I rarely use them. I find it odd that you're convinced you would have scratched the front element when the much weaker filter didn't scratch.
These lens elements are a lot tougher than you think:
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8

A filter would shatter long before you damaged the lens.