Filter question for lens protection

just quickly... im looking for some hi grade filters just to protect the lens element...

is it best just to use a UV one? That be sufficient right? Even though i will occasionally use polariser ones for when shooting landscapes etc?

It's my opinion that you do not need a filter for "protection" except in certain hazardous environments, but each photographer has his/her own opinion. I have never used a filter for anything but creative purposes in 40-plus years, and all my old lenses are still in great shape.

Make sure, even if you elect to buy clear (UV) filters, that you always use the lens hoods that are made for the specific lenses.

If you elect to buy UV filters for "protection", make sure you buy the best multicoated filters that you can find/afford. Putting cheap non-coated filters on those great lenses you have would be a crime.

Can't top the advice you just got....

I use UV filters to protect the front of my lenses from wind-borne debris, branches and twigs, and dog noses, none of which are effectively blocked by lens hoods. I do also use the hoods, which are often, especially on wide angle lenses, too small to be effective as physical protection from anything.

Get only very good quality filters; the best brands are B+W (MRC - their multi-coated line), Heliopan or Hoya (at least SHMC). If it's alwways going to be part of your picture taking, it needs to be at least as good as the gear you're matching it to.

ahhh cool, will go for the top Hoya HMC Pro 1 ones then

As most have said above... I use my UV filter only when Im taking pictures on the beach, or somewhere similar to that. Because of the wind and the water, the spray coats your lens in minutes. With a UV filter on I can 'clean' the lens pretty quickly and aggressivly with my t-shirt, without worrying about the real lens safe underneath.

I use UV filters on all my lenses. They cost me a lot of money (lenses) and I would rather scratch a £40 filter than destroy a £800 lens. They have saved me on two occasions. Once when my camera fell out of the overhead locker on a bus and during the crash the lens cap came off and something went through the filter smashing it. And also when cleaning the front of my lens, I neglected to notice some grit on my lens cloth and put a tiny scrape across the UV filter, again saving the lens.

My advice is basically buy them, you will thank yourself when the once in a lifetime (twice in my case) disaster happens

I'm with Anke, I have Hoya Super HMC Uv pro 1 digital filters on my lenses....that way I know the lens is safe...I also always (if outside) use the hood. I do a lot of outdoor photography and like to know that I can wipe the filter if its raining or if I get mud from horses splashing up...I know of a freind that dropped her camera and the filter broke....but the lens and camera were in marked if she hadn't had one on the lens would have certainly broken.

I usually leave the lens hood on too when just carrying my camera just in case people bump into it or I walk along a wall and scrape the camera down it, then the lens hood would scratch but save the lens.

Call me paranoid?!?!

SkipD wrote in post #2565300
It's my opinion that you do not need a filter for "protection" except in certain hazardous environments...

This is the best advice. Image quality suffers when using a filter because another piece of glass, that the light has to travel through, is added into the equation. Not only is it another piece of glass, but, unlike the elements in the lens, it is not designed to be part of the lens (glass) system. The lens makers don't design their lenses to be at their best with a filter, but without one. Needing a 'protective' filter' is a carry over from a time many decades ago when lens glass and coatings were not as hard as they are now. If, however, you wish to spend some money degrading the quality of photos for every shot you take, get the best filters-Heliopan or B+W (they degrade less than the cheaper stuff). BTW, I see you make no mention of a hood. I guess either you already decided to always use one or haven't given the subject any thought. Now, a hood is not only protection but can improve your pictures under certain conditions.

jr_senator wrote in post #2580352
This is the best advice. Image quality suffers when using a filter because another piece of glass, that the light has to travel through, is added into the equation. Not only is it another piece of glass, but, unlike the elements in the lens, it is not designed to be part of the lens (glass) system. The lens makers don't design their lenses to be at their best with a filter, but without one. Needing a 'protective' filter' is a carry over from a time many decades ago when lens glass and coatings were not as hard as they are now. If, however, you wish to spend some money degrading the quality of photos for every shot you take, get the best filters-Heliopan or B+W (they degrade less than the cheaper stuff). BTW, I see you make no mention of a hood. I guess either you already decided to always use one or haven't given the subject any thought. Now, a hood is not only protection but can improve your pictures under certain conditions.

You'll have to point us to a reputable test of good quality filters that supports your claim. I'll point out that Canon expects several of their L lenses to have filters attached to complete the weather-sealing; one would assume that this consideration was included in the design of the lens' optics.

Jon wrote in post #2581444
You'll have to point us to a reputable test of good quality filters that supports your claim. I'll point out that Canon expects several of their L lenses to have filters attached to complete the weather-sealing; one would assume that this consideration was included in the design of the lens' optics.

Have you ever seen a reptable test that repudiates the claim? As I understand it, Canon advises a filter be attached to complete the weather-sealing on certain lenses when used with a 1 Series camera. That would be when the lens is expected to need complete weather-sealing, not just as a matter of routine. Surely, a Canon ' L' lens is not at it's optimum image quality if a filter is not installed, surely image quality was not sacrificed in lens design if there is no filter, 'L' lenses are used on other than 1 Series cameras as well. Aberrations such as astigmatism are surely corrected in design without a filter. The fact remains, adding another element degrades (however so slightly) image quality, though often negligible.

You're claiming an effect;you're making the statement. You prove it. Scientific method expects proof of the positive assertion (that all filters corrupt always, which you say) not the converse. I've never seen a reputable test of quality filters demonstrating the claim. If you have, why not tell us where?

Plane parallel glass flats under no stress, and controlled alignment to the lens will have no more effect on the lens than the air in front of it - probably less, since air, by its very nature is turbulent, with localized density variations. Further, air isn't always at 1 standard atmosphere. By your logic, it should therefore be impossible to photograph in air without distortions and aberrations.

Jon, you are just too much, air worse than filters? Do you understand how silly that sounds?

I don't use filters, because I'm in high contrast, backlit situations almost exclusively. I've seen too many shots with flare / lowered contrast / ghosting etc. when using (high quality) filters. That being said: If you want to use a filter, get a B+W MRC, and pay attention in 'tricky' situations. Take it off when needed.
Also Always use a hood, unless it interferes with getting the shot.