Why I really feel no need for the protective filter

Regardless of the filters - cool shot!

Invertalon wrote in post #16823343
Just to throw it in there, I use them with no issues. I like them for the care-free cleaning I can do when required

I get a kick out of the many folks who tout their rather careless method of cleaning filters which are "protecting" their high-quality lens(es).

Being relatively careless when cleaning filters can easily damage the filters. Using a damaged filter is more likely to negatively affect one's images than a perfect (undamaged) filter.

To anyone who insists on using filters for "protection", I highly recommend using cleaning techniques that would include the same level of care as the cleaning techniques for the $3000 lens that the filter is used to "protect".

All this being said, I have never used a filter for anything other than the creative effect it was designed for. All of my lenses - including every lens I've purchased since the mid 1960s - has glass that's as close to pristine as it gets. I do use rigid lens hoods on every lens anytime they are out of the case.

I guess that is up to an individual. I don't really care if someones uses Febreze to kill odours and ignores the root problem. Their choice. However it appears this is more about the cost of the filter rather than IQ loss.

Invertalon wrote in post #16823895
Or, you can see it like this...

If you look at just the front element cost alone, sure, it will be less... However, I am sure Canon is charging $300+ for front elements these days with labor/repair rates. Even so, you are looking at maybe 25% of the cost of the element as "insurance". Not including shipping/insurance costs to Canon, which adds another $30-40.

But that still comes, over 8 lenses, to 200% of the cost of one element to protect all 8. I would have to break TWO to come out even, and that doesn't take into account the number of broken filters I would have to pay to replace as I am hard on my gear. The cost of those 8 filters would be as much as a decent lens. I would rather buy a lens than filters.

As I haven't damaged a front element yet, in almost 40 years, it could take me a very LONG time to break two, in fact it is extremely unlikely I ever will. Even if I do, it will only cost me about the same as I would definitely have to pay out on filters, so I am looking at a worst case scenario in order to break even.

Invertalon wrote in post #16823895
Either way, people will either have them or not, and there really is no "better"

That I do fully agree with. Everybody has their own situation and needs, and way of looking at things. There is no single right or wrong answer here, that will suit everybody.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16823757
+1 Or $100 for that matter...

Yeah, but what about on a $600 lens? it's a lot bigger bite for not much (IMO) gain.

SkipD wrote in post #16823916
I get a kick out of the many folks who tout their rather careless method of cleaning filters which are "protecting" their high-quality lens(es).

Being relatively careless when cleaning filters can easily damage the filters. Using a damaged filter is more likely to negatively affect one's images than a perfect (undamaged) filter.

To anyone who insists on using filters for "protection", I highly recommend using cleaning techniques that would include the same level of care as the cleaning techniques for the $3000 lens that the filter is used to "protect".

All this being said, I have never used a filter for anything other than the creative effect it was designed for. All of my lenses - including every lens I've purchased since the mid 1960s - has glass that's as close to pristine as it gets. I do use rigid lens hoods on every lens anytime they are out of the case.

Me, too, except on my macro lens, where it gets in the way too much. But the front element is pretty deeply recessed anyway, so the body of the lens acts as a hood in that case...

When should we actually have a UV filter on and when should we have it off?

I picked up a b+w pro uv/haze filter ($50) for my 50mm lens after realizing it wasnt a good idea to have someone throw snow at the lens for a "cool shot" without a filter on lol...but should I keep it off anytime im not actually needing protection?

thedcmule2 wrote in post #16824020
When should we actually have a UV filter on and when should we have it off?

I picked up a b+w pro uv/haze filter ($50) for my 50mm lens after realizing it wasnt a good idea to have someone throw snow at the lens for a "cool shot" without a filter on lol...but should I keep it off anytime im not actually needing protection?

Yes, exactly. Digital sensors aren't sensitive to UV like film is, so you don't need the "UV" part of the protection. They are sensitive to IR, but they all have IR filters in front of the sensor to prevent it from causing color issues.

thedcmule2 wrote in post #16824020
but should I keep it off anytime im not actually needing protection?

again, yup.

many (if not all) of canon's weather sealed lenses are required to have a front protective filter to complete the weather sealing.

being in a crowded music venue surrounded by folks drinking, and spilling beer is another great reason to put a protective filter on the end of your lens. Especially when one of the folks drinking and spilling beer is also holding the camera.

hes gone wrote in post #16824060
=he's gone;16824060]again, yup.

many (if not all) of canon's weather sealed lenses are required to have a front protective filter to complete the weather sealing.

being in a crowded music venue surrounded by folks drinking, and spilling beer is another great reason to put a protective filter on the end of your lens. Especially when one of the folks drinking and spilling beer is also holding the camera.

Unfortunately, in this situation, the spill is unlikely to be on the front of the lens; it's far more likely to be on top of the body, where the sealing at the front of the lens does absolutely no good...

archer1960 wrote in post #16823972
Me, too, except on my macro lens, where it gets in the way too much. But the front element is pretty deeply recessed anyway, so the body of the lens acts as a hood in that case...

I agree here. My macro lens is the only lens where I don't always keep a hood on it.

I use one, always have, always will.

PS I didn't use one on my Nikor 85mm 1.8 back in the day but I used it indoors 90+% of the time.

First, I just want to say I, as the OP, appreciate the level of maturity and civility in this thread (at least to this point).

schris wrote in post #16823896
Regardless of the filters - cool shot!

Thank you! It was a ton of fun to do!

archer1960 wrote in post #16824082
Unfortunately, in this situation, the spill is unlikely to be on the front of the lens; it's far more likely to be on top of the body, where the sealing at the front of the lens does absolutely no good...

My thoughts exactly. Also why I don't bring my gear into bars...

So if filters are a faux pas, does anyone know where I can order in front element replacements? Apparently they're only a bit more than a filter.

must admit i use vu filters because i shoot allot in the streets where dirt from cars and traffic always kicking up stuff in my lens,its just a lot less effort to keep my lens clean, and if rocks fly my way i feel a little safer then without a filter, i don't think they do much for image quality though as when film was around.