You should deffinately have a UV filter for your lens.

A UV filter for every lens runs into a bunch of cash over time. Besides a multi coated digital UV filter is so expensive you kind of need a filter to protect the filter.

I always wear glasses. For the rest of me, I have medical insurance.

I'm with Bob Atkins. I use a filter when it's appropriate, not all the time. It's just not that difficult to screw one on ...

I bought the UV Haze filter the same day as I bought the Canon EF 100-400 1:4.5-5.6 L IS it went on that day and hasnt come off yet. I read something about the lens being so powerful it would pick up on light reflecting particals in the air and that could over expose my picture. I also figured as often as I clean the lens glass I better have a filter of some sort to protect the special coating. I never thought of the glare. Have I gone overboard? Keep in mind it will be cold day in hades before my hubby lets me replace that 1 very expensive lens anytime soon.

Scott Shaver wrote "Did you even bother to read the further responses in the thread?"

 

Yes Scott I did read the entire thread.

 

And your point?

 

My opinion remains the same, regardless of what others wrote.

 

Have a happy snappy day!

"You should deffinately have a UV filter for your lens."

 

Translation "I am a forum troll"

 

Alternate Translation "I experienced a photographic situation where a piece of equipment served me well so I thought I would issue a blanket statement encompassing all situations and all photographers MUST use said piece of equipment"

 

 

 

In my experience, UV filters (like other filters, lenses, cameras) are most definitely a MUST HAVE in situations where they are an absolute must to have.

Interesting redefinition of the term "troll", and mistranslation of what Scott actually wrote, David. Sorta like the guy I once heard complaining about "spam on my radio." It's called advertising.

 

Scott wrote that folks should "have" a UV filter. He didn't demand that everyone actually use it at all times, or impugn the credibility of anyone who disagrees.

 

But, hey, why let common sense stand in the way of disrupting an otherwise constructive conversation.

Thanks for pointing that out Lex.<p>I use filters most of the time, I shoot in situations with flying bodily fluids and sometimes other liquids. Doesn't make much sense not to use one when this guy comes flying into the corner:<p><center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/bloodyfighter.jpg"><br><i>Bloody Fighter, Copyright 2008 Jeff Spirer</i></center><p>I did get blood on my camera that night, different rules meant the fighters bled more and the fights were stopped less. The guy next to me (not a photographer) bolted during this fight, I didn't have any choice. <P>So for some of us, filters are essential, especially with an expensive lens.

I had to dig through my files to find a truly dreadful, worst case scenario example of how UV filters can destroy a photo. This photo was already in the delete bin but I salvaged it for this demo.

 

Even with a smudged, scratched, cheap UV filter ("Brother" brand, made in Korea), my usual war zone protective filter, this was the worst I could do. Despite being grossly underexposed (my flash didn't have time to recycle), against bright sunlight streaming through a window, the veiling flare isn't nearly as bad as some of my lenses *without* a filter, and even ghosting is minimal.

 

It also shows that the humble 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX Nikkor is exceptionally resistant to flare, especially ghosting, altho' that's a subject for another ragchewing session.<div></div>

"...are most definitely a MUST HAVE in situations where they are an absolute must to have"

 

great point. As a non-native English speaker this leaves me clueless.

Like gear, I buy accessories used. I use good, branded, but inexpensive, UV filters on all my lenses. I like to have options when cleaning a filter, like a shirt tail or a simple napkin, rather than fiddle with my micro fibre cloth stored in a ziplock and hope it's clean. I don't use caps or hoods either. My lenses are in my bag protected only by a filter (and rear cap). I don't shoot into the sun very often. Although, flare can be used creatively. You see it in cinema quite often.

I've used UV or Skylight filters since I was in Vietnam in the 60's. I carried the same two lenses, Nikkor 28 and 105, for 2 years with no damage but cosmetic to either. They saved my lenses repeatedly from chopper blown dust, ejected brass and jungle greenery.

 

Anytime I buy a new lens I buy the corresponding UV filter for protection before I use it. I've never, ever had a UV filter cause a problem with a shot in 42 years of photography, professional and hobbist.

Shortly after I got my first camera I slipped on some loose gravel and droped the camera. The UV filter (which came

with the camera) was destroyed (shattered). The lens didn't even get a scratch. Since then I have always had a UV

filter on (mostly low cost ones). In the last couple of years I have gone digital and purchased several canon L

lenses. On a resent trip to Zion I noticed frequent flare problems. I confirmed it was the filters in a test and went out

and purchased some good coated filters. I then went back to Zion (could get enough of the narrows) and didn't have

any issue with flare. I have always recommended using filters to others. It is also apparent to me that you get what

you pay for in filters. That said I would probably not buy an expensive filter for a low cost lense.