Sooooo which way to go? Mainly used for lens protection, though I realize I do know there are some out there who debate this point...

Two of my lenses have UV filters, the other I tried a skylight filter. I think I like the skylight better, but for absolutely no reason at all. Perhaps the slight purple tinge looks cool? Unquantifiable.

Anyhow, I was thinking of getting a Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF ED; not sure to go w/ a skylight, or reuse an existing UV filter. All are Hoya filters:
* 72mm Skylight
* 67mm UV, HMC -- would reuse this one
* 62mm UV, plain

Think of it as a general purpose filter--the only time I'd take it off is to attach my circular polarizer. I shoot mainly landscapes, some architecture, a bit of my spouse's sporting events, some party photos, and a bit of wedding candids...

Thoughts?

 

Hoya UV HMC.........

 

sorry to thread jack very slightly, but can some of the pros please express their opinion for/against uv filters as protection. I have been considering getting a couple for my canon lenses and was curious if they are suggested or not.

 

UV

 

im no pro but ive got UV filters on all of my lenses. theyre a cheap investment to protect expensive lenses. i have all L lens, mind you, so if the front glass element gets scratched or what not, im out of pocket for expensive repairs/replacement.

 

UV. On every lens. Every single time.

I've tried a number of times to tell a difference in IQ and cannot. The protection value is undeniable. We recently had a puppy run into and break a UV filter here and I believe I saw on PotN recently a welding slag take out a UV filter. Both of those would could have been front elements on L-series lenses. Instead, it was $60-80 for a new, easily replaceable UV filter.

Aaron

 

I used to do this but I got more critical of my images and now I go naked. Lens hoods provide enough protection for me and you should almost always be using a proper hood to avoid light spill on the lens. A damaged front element is repairable (been there done that) at reasonable cost (less than the price of a high-quality filter!).

If you insist on a filter I suggest buying the best multi-coated one you can afford and keeping it spotlessly clean.

 

No filters.

Because digital sensors are kind of reflective (much more reflective than film ever was), if you are shooting in a back-lit situation, you can get internal reflections from the sensor that bounces back off the filter and shows up on the image.

Yes, there are situations where a filter might be desired for protection (the welding scenario is a good one), but I'd consider them as a "sometimes" use rather than having them on full time.

 

Steve, that is the best argument I've read against using filters. But, your shots are also largely "paid for" shots. Meaning, you can absorb a certain amount of risk by not using a filter. Also, could it not be written off as a loss in April? If I were damage either of my lenses it's entirely my own disposable income to repair/replace them.

 

True, I carry full insurance on my equipment so having the front element of my 85 f/1.2 melt due to slag isn't going to bother me except for the rest of that shoot.