who doesnt use a filter..

jacuff wrote in post #8985773
What filters do you put on the 200mm f/1.8L, 200mm f/2L IS, 300mm f/2.8L IS, 400mm f/2.8L IS, 500mm f/4L IS, 600mm f/4L IS, and 800mm f/5.6L IS since you put them on every lens?

Obviously it's a moot point, since those aren't the lenses the working pros on sports shooters use...

Dave

PMCphotography wrote in post #8985434
True. But unless you pixel peep, in most situations (not extreme night shots or shooting directly into the sun) the "image degradation" is so minuscule as to be non-noticeable except at 400%.

Well, the loss of contrast will affect the whole image, so is more noticeable when viewing the whole image, not when zoomed in.

PMCphotography wrote in post #8985434
By your same logic,


All shots taken with a tripod are superior to handheld shots, So handholding your camera will degrade your image quality.

Correct. But using a tripod for every shot involves some hassle. Not using a filter involves no hassle.

Only lens I don't use a UV on is 14L

Reason for this; I can't!

hollis_f wrote in post #8988301
Correct. But using a tripod for every shot involves some hassle. Not using a filter involves no hassle.

The point i was making is that every decision is a tradeoff- If you want to protect your element from salt spray/dirt/mud/sand or scratching the element if you drop it, you have to give up a minuscule amount of contrast loss.

Just like using a tripod...

The "filters cause image quality degradation" is a dated idea from decades ago that won't die. Years ago, it made a difference, but with the high quality filters made today it is generally fine to use them as long as you get a very good one.

If you don't want to use one fine. If you do want to use one make sure you get a good one.

I bet that if I posted two pics of the same scene where the only difference was that one had a UV filter and the other didn't, no one would be able to tell the difference.