Your favorite clear filter?

It hss been several years since I purchased a filter. I had a habit of purchasing a UV filter for every lens I had . At some point I started removing the filters to get the best possible image. Now I'm back to using filters!

Not sure if there is any real difference between a clear vs. UV filter. Most of my filters were purchased back in my film days!

So, I need to either use one of my old B+W UV Haze 1x filters, or go out and buy a new clear filter for my 70-200 and 16-35.

What are your favorite filters? Which would you recommend?

snegron wrote in post #17964161
It hss been several years since I purchased a filter. I had a habit of purchasing a UV filter for every lens I had . At some point I started removing the filters to get the best possible image. Now I'm back to using filters!

Not sure if there is any real difference between a clear vs. UV filter. Most of my filters were purchased back in my film days!

So, I need to either use one of my old B+W UV Haze 1x filters, or go out and buy a new clear filter for my 70-200 and 16-35.

What are your favorite filters? Which would you recommend?

"Favorite clear filter" is an oxymoron. Sensors are not sensitive to UV. Filters are expensive and don't afford the front element any impact protection (the filters shatter easily). I use lens hoods instead.

I live in the desert, it can get very windy here. If I don't put a protective filter on my lenses the front element will end up with pits in the coating. My recently purchased 150-600mm Sigma has a B + W 95mm filter on it, the filter has pits in the coating already.

My b+w causes flaring... All hurt edge performance a bit....

No filter at the beach had my 24-70 ii coat peeling, a $600 repair....

Ouch, I have a Tamron for that range, I used it a lot without a filter and the front element has quite a few dings in the coating.

Canonuser123 wrote in post #17964183
Ouch, I have a Tamron for that range, I used it a lot without a filter and the front element has quite a few dings in the coating.

I had the tamron 24-70 a few years back, shot near the ocean plenty, never a problem. In fact shot with many lenses near the ocean without issue, but the new canon 24-70ii.... it's a known issue that canon doesnt seem to accept.

http://www.canonrumors​.com/forum/index.php?t​opic=19396.0

going to have to badger canon till I get it fixed free, it's pretty ridiculous.

Canonuser123 wrote in post #17964183
Ouch, I have a Tamron for that range, I used it a lot without a filter and the front element has quite a few dings in the coating.

If you are getting sandblasted, I gotta wonder what your camera body and other gear looks like.

None, that's my favorite.

Most of my cameras look very nice still, blowing dust seems to like my lenses. The cars windshields take a beating out here also.

I have filter on all of my glass...because it's my gear and I can.

All of my filters are B+W - UV, CPL, and ND. No complaints here.

I want to try these when they become available.
http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/wr-ceramic/

I was intrigued with those as well. Doubt I'd change out any of the filters I already have but I like the options for future glass/filters.

I don't have a need for filters, I'm 1,500 miles from the beach.
I always have some with me just in case.

These ones: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …mm_XS_Pro_NANO_​Clear.html

There's never seemed to be any price advantage for "clear" vs. UV, so all my lenses that take filters have B+W MRC UV. Also, while sensors have a UV filter on them, if it's only (typical value) 99% effective and you're up in thinner air (like I often am), wouldn't you want that extra assurance of another 99% reduction in UV hitting the sensor.