Poll: Do you use UV filters/protectors on your lenses?

How could even a filter touch the ground, much less the lens, if you were using a properly designed lens hood? Lens hoods should always be used for protection from stray light as well as mechanical contact with things.

I'm amazed at how many folks I see using filters to "protect" their lenses but don't even carry, much less use, lens hoods. That's why their filters get so buggered up with fingerprints, etc.

Well if I were laying on my belly (as I often do) and were using Nifty or my Sigma 28-90 the lens hood is rather short. If a rock or a blade of grass is tall and I tilt the camera then the rock or blade of grass could touch the filter, no? Now if I were shooting with my 70-200L then no the rock or blade of grass probaly would just touch the hood. Now, if I were standing in the middle of an AutoX course, and a car was say 20 or less feet from me and slung a rock, and I were using Nifty, Sigma or 17-40 the rock would hit the filter rather than the glass. I don't thing the hood would catch that. Now on the 70-200 the rock would have to take a pretty good aim to hit the hole but it could happen. Therefore I use a UV filter for protection. I also use CP filter to reduce glare.

I use the clear glass filter for my 400mm, as I'm often shooting in sandy, windy conditions (salt marshes, beaches, etc.)

I never take them off.
I have seen several comprehensive tests that conclude that there is no discernable image degradation with good quality filters.Over time, airborne grit alone will abrade your front element.
And they also offer insurance like this:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Use UV filters (the best I can find) on all lenses. I have seen occasional 'scratches' on my lenses and have no idea where or how they got there. Just want to protect my lenses 100%. Hoods rule but they are too bulky for most of my shooting...That's it...no discussion needed...everyone has their own reasons for filters/no filters. Respect!!!

Nope! Just use the hood.

Yikes!! good thing you had the filter in place, otherwise that would have been very costly!

The poll results show roughly 50 50 now, half prefer to be on the safe side & the other half, well I lets just say I wouldnt be taking any risks if I owned an expensive lens, I dont even want to risk it with my 17-70.

Sure you could think "ive never had any problems" but its sods law that something will, after all a filter doesnt affect image quality at all, but to each their own..

Nick

Nick_C wrote:
Sure you could think "ive never had any problems" but its sods law that something will, after all a filter doesnt affect image quality at all, but to each their own..

Nick

And if the horrible happens I'll send my lens in and get it repaired.

I also remember being in a camera store 30 years ago where a lens rep butted out a lit cigarette on the front element of a lens and cleaned it up to show no damage as a demonstration that filters aren't required. Not saying that I'd try it myself, or if newer coatings would still stand up to that kind of abuse, but it was a pretty convincing argument.

I have several Nikkor (for my Nikon F's) and Mamiya (for my C-33) lenses that are approximately 40 years old. I bought them all new in the 1960's. None have ever worn filters except for special effects, and all have been used extensively. All have always had hoods mounted. One of my Nikon lenses, mounted to a Nikon F body, crashed to a sidewalk from 4 feet.

None of my lenses have any scratches or any other damage to the front elements, and the one that crashed did not need any repairs (still works fine today). The crashed lens hood was replaced, though, primarily for aesthetic reasons.

Yes (#2) on all but my Sigma because the glass bubbles out too far. As for the rest of my lenses I've always had a UV filter on them since they were purchased. Sure it provides both UV protection and but also physical protection. There was a time I accidentally smashed a filter while it was on the front of my Nikon lens. Luckily the lens was unharmed. Better a $30 filter than a $300 lens.

I would hate spending the cash on getting it repaired, its like money down the drain to me, you get the lens back working but your back to where you started, so I guess thats why I try & reduce any chances by using a UV, repair bills at least in this country are horrendous.

Yes I do. I also wear sunglasses when the sun is high and low too.

Hmmm...To use a filter or not???

I was always told the conventional wisdom was to put a UV filter on every lense. I usually just purchase a 15.00 Hoya for my lense. I didn't realize that this could cause issues with the image. I will have to look more closely.

Questions about the hood. In a medium-light awards ceremony taking posed shots as each individual receives the award would you use a hood? I am using a 430EX flash and a 18-125mm lense with a tripod.

Thanks!

P.S. I think I need to spend two weeks just reading these forums!

I always use a properly designed lens hood on any lens I am using unless it would get in the way, such as for macro (extreme close-up) work. There are two reasons that I use hoods. One is to block stray light that could affect my images. The other is that hoods make great "bumpers" to ward off potentially damaging contact of things in the real world with my lens.

Protection. I also use hoods religiously. I have a Sigma 70-200 that likes to lose it's lens cap. I am constantly getting it in/out of my bag with the hood reversed and the lens cap pops off.