Wish the site had a Take A Poll function. But, since it doesn't...

[unangelino]

...I'd like to get a sense of what percentage of you use filters as cautionary or protective devices? I'm not trying

to stir up the old debate about whether they can compromise the optics of a good lens, I just want to know how

many of you think they're <i>needed</i> to protect your investment. Thanks to all.

[j_smith6]

I don't use them at all and don't even have a single scratch. I think they're really unnecessary unless you take pictures in rain.

[joshroot]

I've never used them.

[lex_jenkins]

I either use a protective filter or keep 'em handy. After working in adverse conditions as a reporter and PJ, having to wipe soot and spray from lenses during structural fires, fingerprints from people grabbing at the camera, etc., it's just been pragmatic to risk the filter rather than the lens. But when there's little risk of damaging the lens, I remove the filter.

[david_henderson]

In general I do not use filters on a lens unless I want the specific effect they create. The one exception is in sandy conditions or by the sea where there's spray.

[bangengeman]

The only filters I own are a CPL and a Neutral Density (3 stop) filter. Yes I'm cheap and that plays a part why I don't have a protective filter, but I find it unnecessary. Besides, if all you got are cheap lenses, you have to squeeze out every bit of quality, right?

[andy_briggs1]

Generally speaking, since migrating to digital, I don't use filters unless it's a polariser / ND for artistic effect.

 

I may be storing up trouble for later but I reckon the lens hoods (which I do have for all of my lenses) would provide

some protection for the front elements.

 

The only exception would be if I expected rain / sea spray / sandy conditions where I will always put a polariser on

for protection.

[martijn_houtman]

All my lenses are permanently covered with UV or skylight filters for protection. I've done some small tests and image

quality hardly degrades (if at all) and flare is not much different either, so no real downsides for me. I use polarizer filters as

well, but those are for the effect, not for protection.

[mike dixon]

I never use them for protection.

[AJHingel]

I always use them. Like my lenses too much not to.

[mrossi]

I use them on the lenses I take outdoors. For me it's just a small level of protection for when I'm thrashing through bushes, nice to have the original lens element untouched from elements.

[tholte]

I use a UV filter on my lenses because I do mostly outside stuff, often in rain, snow, fog and sand. Sand is a lens killer, hard to get off without scratching. I don't think a decent quality UV filter affects image quality in the least.

[sprouty]

Always on my M6, never on my D700. My completely biased, non-scientific highly opinionated...uhm, well…opinion is that I get more ghosting/flare/whatever with the digital sensor.

[DickArnold]

The only time a I use a filter is on the deck shooting swimming. I sometimes get splashed a little and like to keep the

water of the lens itself. I can quickly wipe the water off the filter. Other that I never use them.

[bernie moore]

Got 'em; don't use 'em. Have you done the math yet?

[charles_stobbs3]

I used a UV filter when I went hiking or skiing in the mountains. Otherwise no.

[User_3804048]

Always. I once had a lens saved when I dropped it while getting it out of the case. The filter had its threads bent and its glass broken, but the lens was unscathed. Also, the filters keep the glass surfaces pristine, even on the soft uncoated glass of a Leica lens from the thirties.

[neal wells]

I never use them unless a filter is specifically called for when I take a shot and no scratched lenses either.

[geoffs1]

Default: always on. I do take them off for situations where ghosting/flare might be a problem.

[dlw]

I almost always use them. I don't always shoot in the best places or conditions and would rather screw up a filter as a lens.

[KenPapai]

Purely as protective ? Pretty much never. Makes no sense the type of work I do. Use Lens Hoods,

always.

[think27]

100% always use filters.

 

If you are a slow, deliberate and careful photographer..always using lens cap etc.. you don't need it.

 

But - if you are, like me - a wedding photographer shooting fast and furious - shooting with three cameras - climbing rocks, walls and in and out of cars for 5-6-7 hours - a filter will protect your lens.

[GerrySiegel]

Well I once had a skylight filter to cover every, meaning every lens. There were 55mm, 52mm, 67mm and then even

72mm . one ine 40.5mm and a couple for classic camera in Series Numbers. Hoya, Tiffen, Heliopan oddball sized. I

then dropped the whole protection cover business and only use my step up and step down rings for closeup diopters

now and then.

 

I handle my lenses very carefully in the field and rarely have them in a threatening environment for the front

element. And have had more trouble lately with mildew than scratches and dents and water spots. Also, I believe

that aluminum ring filters almost chemically bond with brass lens threads and need plastic lens wrenches to get

them off (to clean the haze inside). So I have some soft focus and pola filters I used with a Bronica and will

try with my digital -with an adapter too - it gets to take the fun out a little sorting these things out.

 

But I will take my chances in that cold and lens unfriendly world. If I go to sandy beach...well I don't do much

windy sandy beach stuff anyway. Short answer= almost never as protection even with yard sprinklers. Hard water

stains come off if you get to them soon. " And will you need a filter for that lens sir als the sales rep?" ( I

hasten to add that I have no Summicrons in my collection:-) )Hope that helps, amigo..gs

[ishi_p]

I find a lens cap is enough for protection. You soon get used to removing it as you bring the camera up.

 

Plus you don’t have to worry about having a filter marked if you keep the camera open, bouncing around your body

while you climb a tree.

 

Or whatever you may do.

[unangelino]

The reason I asked is because the last time I was into photography filters were far more de rigeur, or at least i think they were. Of course, I used yellow and red filters for some of my B&W stuff but the UVs were a staple on my lenses for protection. But, this time around I feel a bit ore prejudiced against them for optical reasons, though I am not certain that I could see an effect. I guess it comes down to what will scare me more...the risk of damaging the front element or the risk of compromising the overall quality of my photos. Anyway, I think I'm gonna stay away from them and see how it goes. Thanks to all.