Hard to shoot with a lens cap on... unless it's a transparent lens cap... called a "filter."
(BTW, I voted for "naked," but n0b0's reasons are among the better I've heard - though I'm not sure that a jumping spider could sink its fangs into the front element. But he knows more about that than I.)
I would be curious to why people use the UV. I personally am just to paranoid about scratching the element or letting nature take hold (dust, sand etc.) .
I've always wondered if it really makes and difference except adding 1 more piece of glass which may or may not degrade the image quality slightly. I just don't know where there is a good place where this topic has been tested scientifically or at least practically. Any thoughts?
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.
Speaking of which, what's the difference between a UV filter and a skylight filter?
A UV filter is only relevant on a film camera. It cuts UV radiation, which film is sensitive to, thus reducing haze. A digital sensor is not really UV sensitive so they are just a waste of money.
Skylight filters are ever so slightly warm, which again, on a dSLR is irrelevant as your auto WB will either counter-act the effect or if you do like your photos slightly warmer just shift the WB bias a bit. So again, they are a waste of money.
If you really do need "protection" from salt spray and so on, a UV is probably the best option as it won't affect the colour balance. If you need protection from anything else, just use the hood.
By the way, the front element of a lens is harder and the coatings much better than anything you'd get with a dinky little piece of glass inside a circular metal ring. But that's just my opinion.
UV filter can cause flare, so use with caution. I use them for lenses that have exposed front elements, or in adverse conditions. Look at the ufo's from the xmas lights in this shot, completely went away when filter was removed.
I've shot in a LOT of challenging conditions (rock music festivals, surf contests, winter backpacking trips etc), and I have never needed a filter. One of the reasons is this: When shooting outdoors, I usually like to use a circular polarizer to enhance skies and contrast. And it is those same outdoor environments where I would have possibly needed a UV filter... Therefore I have no need for UV filters.
Yes and no. I used to shoot them exclusively for front element protection on my L lenses, and never noticed any degrading of the image due to using them. Lately, I haven't added them. Don't know if it's laziness or just don't feel I need it.
