You should deffinately have a UV filter for your lens.

I've seen posts stating that there is no reason to have a UV filter on your lens, that it is just a waste of money.

 

Well I just got the Sigma 150-500mm for my D300 and took it out for the first time. I haven't yet purchased a uv filter

for it because the local stores don't seem to cary that size so I need to order it online.

 

Anyway, I went to a motocross event and nearly got the lens destroyed by flying rocks from one of the bikes. It was

dumb luck that a rock didn't go straight into the glass.

 

I won't be doing that again without a filter to take the damage. I just I'd share the experience to save someone else

pain.

The protective filter on my 18-70 DX saved the front element from flying birthday cake, kid fingerprints and a direct hit from a Nerf missile at a party the other day. Okay, the Nerf missile prolly wouldn't have hurt anything.

 

Protective filters do have a use. Some folks have tried to turn this into some sort of religious crusade, pro or con, rather than using common sense. Use 'em when and where appropriate. In my case, I'd rather use the filter and laugh about accidents than get all flinchy about protecting my bare lens and spoil the mood of the moment around kids having fun.

I like em. My fingers are the worst offenders. It depends a lot on your frame of mind. If you're nitpicky, and break out in a sweat at the thought of cleaning an expensive lens coatings (like me), quality UV's are for you.

 

A side issue is the proponents of "clear" filters vs UV. I figure UV's are readily available, unobtrusive, and have some benefit, why not use them?

 

The only time I take mine off is for night shots, they tend to be especially bad for introducing extraneous reflections in these situations.

 

Here's something on the subject:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Filter-Reviews.aspx

Were you wearing a crash helmet with a face shield too? If rocks were rapidly flying at me, I think I'd be protecting my face and head before I worried about the lens. If it was dumb luck the rocks didn't hit the lens, it was equally dumb luck they didn't hit you in the eye.

 

Obviously filters can serve a useful purpose, just as a crash helmet can. However I don't wear a crash helmet all day, just in case something falls on my head.

In many instances, a protective filter, while not "just a waste of money", is an extra expense that many could probably forgo. For instance, it probably doesn't make a lot of economic sense to buy a $50 filter to add to the front of a $100 lens if you are just going to be using it to take pictures of your summer vacation travels.

 

However, in your instance (flying mud and debris), a protective filter would be clearly beneficial, and as you discovered, it could be somewhat foolhardy (and expensive) to not use one in such circumstances.

 

So, as Lex notes, use 'em when you need 'em. Most of my lenses do not wear protective filters most of the time. But I do own a UV/clear filter in each size necessary to fit all of my lenses, and if I know that I am going to be in conditions (flying birthday cake) where one will be useful, I will mount it. One the other hand, if I am taking a scenic shot of a sunset where the only hazard is mosquito bites, I leave the filter off.

UV filters don't have to be expensive, I bought 62mm B+W filters for like 20$ a piece to put on my Bronica lenses. It save those lenses from a whole deal of smut and dirt. When I see someone running around with a fairly expensive lens without an UV filter then 1 word comes to my mind: DUMBASS!

Actually, Bob, I got hit in the face three times in five minutes while shooting an impromptu barrel race. About two

continuous-frame-speed-shots after the one below, the horse in question kicked up a rock that <i>did</i> catch me

right in

the sunglasses, producing a nice gouge. I also wound up with a ton of fine dust and grit and damp cottonwood pollen

on my 70-200/2.8 - especially on the B+W UV filter I keep thereon. It isn't just the incoming rocks, it's the clean up

afterwards. I'd much rather clean abrasive grit from a filter than from the front end of the lens. When you need 'em

(filters), you need 'em. I'm always annoyed by the people who are entirely binary on this issue. I have lenses with,

and those without. Shooting outdoors, for me, usually means that stuff's flying around. So, yes, I protect my eyes,

wear a brimmed hat (which does help), and usually end up spitting out mud and bugs by the end of the day.<div></div>

I don't usually get things flying at my when I'm taking pictures of trees and mountains. Good quality UV filters for all my lenses would cost over $500. I could replace almost any one of my lenses for that. And, in 5 years of shooting, I've never scratched anything. More filters degrade image quality and add volume and weight to your bag. Further, on my 2 most frequently used lenses, I can't stack a UV filter and a polarizer, so I'd constantly be swapping them depending on what I'm doing, which is more dangerous than not having a filter on at all.

 

So, there are some of us that should definitely not have UV filters for our lenses.

I'm with Matt. When I have a good reason to use a filter, I use one. Most of the time I don't, but If I'm working somewhere with flying mud or grit, I'd certainly add one. Just like I only put my sunglasses on when the sun is out and I only wear my helmet when actually riding my bike!

The first camera accessory I bought was a filter. I didn't care if it was clear or UV, I just needed a filter! (I ended up with a UV one.)

I don't have the most expensive lens on the planet, it just happens to be my only lens, and my favorite subject to shoot happens to be my dogs. They are very curious pooches, and my beagle sniffed my lens (WITHOUT the filter) and you know it, she bumped it and got dog snot on it. Those of you with dogs know that dog snot is like cement, when it dries, it stays. I have a Lowepro bag that has a microfiber cloth built in, and I got most of the snot off right away, but not all of it and spent the rest of the time (we were at a picnic) feeling miserable. Later that evening when we got home, I used a softer, thicker, microfiber cloth that I use to clean the house with but it had been washed, and the rest of the snot (thankfully) came right off.

I went out the next day and got a filter and a new microfiber cloth that is my lens-only cloth. The peace of mind is worth it, in fact I have bumped the lens at least twice and wiping the filter is much less stressful than wiping the lens!

However, I can see the point of not having a filter, and if I were in situations where it would do more harm than good (in terms of photo quality) I definitely would not hestitate to take it off - even if I was photographing dogs! :)

I have read stuff by other photographers who use filters practically as lens caps, and smear them with vaseline to get different photo effects and so on. One photographer wrote that he doesn't ever put a cap on his lens, he uses a filter that screws on so he can't lose it, and he just replaces it when needed!

It seems like filters are nice to have around, but not always necessary to use. I imagine though, that a clear glass (not UV or anything) wouldn't affect photo quality at all - is that correct?

Dog snot does have remarkable properties, but can be cleaned with a citric-acid type cleaner and a bit of elbow grease. This doesn't apply to lenses--it's practical to keep a small bottle of lens-cleaning solution in your bag with lens tissue for its application and microfiber for the final polishing.<p>Filters are also appropriate in the right situations--shooting at the beach comes to mind. Every glass-to-air surface impacts optical quality negatively, and cheap filters impact it more negatively than the expensive optical flats, so you'd probably want to do studio work and salon work filterless. Glass protects against dust and debris, but not against hard objects, and I'd want a lens cap in transport unless I had a lens hood in addition to the filter.

Bob, yeah I thought about my eyes after the fact, stupid me. When I went to the race I didn't think I would get anywhere as close to the action as I did. It turned out that at several places I was within a few feet of the bikes racing by. LOL, now that I think about I was REALLY lucky not to loose my vision. I definately should have had better self protection than I had, next time I'll know better.

I don't (yet) have good filters for all my lenses, but I plan to get them eventually and, as others have noted, use them when necessary. Some of the time, and especially when shooting in good conditions outside at night, a protective filter is unnecessary at best and detrimental to your photos at worst.

 

But a lot of the time, it is a good idea, even outdoors in seemingly benign conditions. I was lucky enough to spend a week in Colorado, and I spent a lot of time taking photos in Rocky Mountain National Park. Once you get above the treeline, there is a lot of wind, and I vividly remember thanking myself for remembering filters for the lenses I was using up there. On one occasion, I recall being quite literally sandblasted with dust in sustained 40mph winds.

I've read so many opinions on this. Some people explain that the image may be harmed, however insignificantly, by adding a filter and that if the filter shatters it can scratch the front element. I also know how I am. I am inadvertently touching the front element all the time somehow--I don't know why, it just happens. Given that I have never jammed anything into the front of a lens or dropped a lens causing a filter to shatter, or noticed any particular negative impact on my pix when using a filter (I am either not discerning enough to tell the filter created a problem or plain it didn't), I use 'em all the time. I am completely relaxed about cleaning a filter that got sea spray on it or dust or finger smudge or whatever; I am a wreck about cleaning front elements of lenses. Given that overall I experience no downside of using filters and that they save me from wiping dirt off far more expensive lenses, I prefer to use them.

As stated, just a matter of what you do. Even on the race track I don't use them. Scott, not trying to be funny here but when you're at the motocross and rocks are flying around you'r ears it could be argued that you where standing in the wrong place to begin with.

I always hear get the most expensive filters but I have tried some cheap ones and I really cannot see any difference in

quality.

I won't post my "Tru-Scru" (yes, really) filter again (chorus of cheers!) , but in previous hands it had protected a nice Canon OM 50mm f/1.9 in an Exakta mount (yes, really) so that it was in perfect shape despite a fall that dented the camera it was on and the filter was bunged up. In film days, it made more sense to keep a UV filter on all the time, but digital sensors, not so much. Like Tommy, I haven't seen much practical difference between filters like Spiratone and B+W. In the most critical sharpness or flare situation, I'd certainly remove _any_ filter before shooting.

So for lens protection, would everyone think a Tiffen that is not multi-coated adequate? Or is multi-coating a must? Thanks!

Has anybody tried taking 2 pictures one with a UV filetr and one without then blowing it up in PS at 200% to see if they can tell any difference. I haven't but one of these rainy days maybe I will. I don't know, John Shaw the famous Nature photographer recomends keeping the filter on the lens most of the time, but for real critical shots especially Macro shots, remove the filter.

The only image quality difference I see is that with point light sources in the frame (typically street lights in night scenes), non-multicoated filters may create some ghosts in the pic (depending a bit on the lens). Resolution and contrast-wise, I haven't found any difference when using a filter or not, but e.g. in macro scenes dust on the filter may be better in focus than dust on the front element.

Yes, flare and ghosting is a real problem with uncoated filters in the wrong lighting. There's a pretty obvious visible difference between a decent multi-coated filter (B+W MRC, Hoya Pro-1) and an uncoated filter - good clear/UV MCs look almost like empty rings when clean because there's so little surface reflection. And as you can pick up a Pro-1 on ebay for the cost of a Tiffen at a local dealer, there's no real reason not to go for a decent filter.

older lenses without coating would benefit much from a uv filter. modern lenses don't need that. so why have a filter? the only reason would be the protection element. this i agree with wholeheartedly. if you are a careless person who is prone to damaging equipment then get one.

 

one more issue, if you are getting a three hundred dollar lens and then fitting a ten dollar filter on top, that makes little sense. similarly, a cheap lens and very expensive filter does not make sense either.

 

each to their own.

Nah...no thinks, no filters for me. I have L glass and I want it naked...funny the OP is so concerned about his new lens, but what about his eyes? The degradation may be small and most often unnoticable, but regardless, I rather go "naked" and take my chances, and 25 years since shooting EOS, never a problem.

 

The only filters I use are polarizers, and neutral density type filters AS REQUIRED.

 

Buy a helmet and goggles after you order the filter. ;-)

"funny the OP is so concerned about his new lens, but what about his eyes"

 

Did you even bother to read the further responses in the thread?

I agree...this is the results of short drop. After the camera repair guy got the filter off the lens still worked!

 

<a href="http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r87/ronbrp/?action=view&current=_D2X7084-3.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r87/ronbrp/_D2X7084-3.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>