Zara
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
RCicala wrote:
Like so many things in photography, once we start saying "always" and "never" things get remarkably opinionated, and that seems especially true regarding UV filters.
Personally I keep them in my bag and use them in situations where they are clearly of benefit: blowing sand or grit, water spray, on 17-55 IS lenses, etc.
I never use them when they are more likely to cause issues: night or low light photography, with the sun or strong lights in image.
In between those extremes I don't use them because I don't think its cost effective (i.e. people state their $70 filter saved their $1,500 lens, when actually it just saved them a $170 front element replacement). And for several lenses the front element costs less than a good filter (the front element for the 70-200 f4 IS, for example, costs $47) .
The other thing that's kind of counter productive in this discussion is that many of the newer, most expensive wide angle lenses have front elements that eliminate to option of using a filter. The 17 TS-E and Nikon 14-24 f2.8 for example. But those same lenses have hoods that offer little or no protection.
I'm with Roger. Once a lens collection goes beyond 2 or so lenses, it becomes financially questionable to purchase high quality filters for all lenses. It takes much more than many people think to scratch or damage a front element. And even if the worst case happens, it's usually a fairly simple and cheap repair. Even two front element replacements are likely cheaper than than buying a number of B+W, Heliopan, Rodenstock or Hoya Pro1 filters.
I have 2 high quality filters (77/72mm) for my L lenses and they only go on if conditions warrant it. My lens hoods are much more reliable than a filter at protecting my glass, and they positively improve IQ to boot.
my $0.02 Canadian 
|
).
