Somewhat depends on what and where I'm shooting. Rodeo events if I'm in the line of fire from barrel racers tossing sand and rocks into my face (and lens!) - usually go for the protection.
Most of the time though... it's bare glass all the way!
IF I have a lens which is out of production or unlikley to be able to find a replacement front element, the UV filter goes on. Someone wants to borrow a lens....the filter goes on.
just about completely even, as it should be as people just aren't willing to budge on this subject. Maybe, a little. I started out with UV all the time, now I only use them in certain conditions like other have mentioned. Also don't forget, some Canon L lenses need it to be weather sealed.
I don't take a new lens out of the box unless I have a UV ready to install, haha. Never used to use them, but then never used to pay big bucks for a lens, either.
People don't use the UV filter in lieu of the lens hood, they use it in conjunction with the lens hood - why is the lens hood relevant to this (over discussed) topic?
Dawei Ye wrote:
People don't use the UV filter in lieu of the lens hood, they use it in conjunction with the lens hood - why is the lens hood relevant to this (over discussed) topic?
Agree! Hood+Filter=Win
Dawei Ye wrote:
People don't use the UV filter in lieu of the lens hood, they use it in conjunction with the lens hood - why is the lens hood relevant to this (over discussed) topic?
Both UV filters and lens hoods are commonly used for physical protection of the front element. In that regard I think it is relevant to the topic.
I don't use UV in all my lenses but interestingly, all the magazine articles I've read seem to recommend it. They also claim that it cuts through the haze in summer time.
Speaking of which, what's the difference between a UV filter and a skylight filter?
n0b0 wrote:
I don't use UV in all my lenses but interestingly, all the magazine articles I've read seem to recommend it. They also claim that it cuts through the haze in summer time.
Probably because the filter mfgs advertise in their rags. That's the way the game is played.
Speaking of which, what's the difference between a UV filter and a skylight filter?
Ross T. wrote:
...otherwise why shoot through an extra piece of glass?....
For me, a few reasons. Prevent brushing against tree branches. Prevent jumping spiders from hopping on my front element trying to sink its fang. Make it so when I shoot really low on the ground, the only part scraping the ground is the filter.
My camera with my 100/2.8 fell from a folding chair to the floor with a filter installed, cap on, and hood reversed. I had set it down on the chair and walked away. The fall was accidental. It landed on filter ring, shattering the filter, subsequently scratching the coating on the front element. There is absolutely no issue with image quality. I never put another protective filter on a lens. Since then I have purchased 3 used lenses all with imperfections in the front element. (They are usually cheaper that way) No problems with image quality on those either. When shooting, I always use the hood.
n0b0 wrote:
For me, a few reasons. Prevent brushing against tree branches. Prevent jumping spiders from hopping on my front element trying to sink its fang. Make it so when I shoot really low on the ground, the only part scraping the ground is the filter.
just about completely even, as it should be as people just aren't willing to budge on this subject. Maybe, a little. I started out with UV all the time, now I only use them in certain conditions like other have mentioned. Also don't forget, some Canon L lenses need it to be weather sealed.