....but I love when I buy a used lens with a high quality UV filter attached. That way, I can quickly recover some of the cost for the lens.
Now that's true! Me too! Olympus filters, Nikon filters, Leica filters, Zeiss filters, Minolta filters, Cosina filters, SUN filters, are some of the ones I've noticed liking and collecting.
I mean doesn't that just say: "Buy Me!".
Most seem to be Kenko - WTF? I'd never actually use any of them tho.
Even better sometimes the seller leaves a polarizer on the lens when they box it up.
briantho wrote:
For the record, I never use UV filters, but I love when I buy a used lens with a high quality UV filter attached. That way, I can quickly recover some of the cost for the lens.
Bifurcator wrote:
I hate all filters! Filters suck!
Ga! OK, I hate all non-polarizing, non ND filters when I'm not shooting B&W film below 2,000 feet elevation. There, nailed it!
L O L
(As if by magic, this morning while you were still editing your post I needed ND and polarizing filters and I was up several thousand feet in the mountains... how'd you manage to nail that too?)
Am curious, will sea salt spray degrade or affect the coating on modern lenses?
I almost never use UV filters, especially with my M Mount Leica lenses. I have carried out controlled test and the UV filters, unless they are transparent , will cause all sorts of flare, ghosting and added CA.
I do slap on a UV filter when I'm at the beach or when I'm shooting without a hood. I guess its psychological from the old film days where I always had a UV filter for protection, well done Hoya Marketing.
Maybe a new poll should be started with the most commonly (and repeatedly) debated questions in photography:
1. UV filters - yes or no
2. Primes vs. zooms
3. Full frame vs. crop sensor
4. Crop sensor vs. M43
5. Film vs. digital
6. Canon vs. Nikon
7. Zeiss vs CaNikon
8. Leica vs. everybody
9. Adapt vs. native
10. If I have a camera, lens, and a flash, can I be a commercial photographer?
I am sure I have forgotten some, feel free to add on.
I always have my lens caps on when I am not shooting, even during a shoot I put them on and off...force of habit.
Never used filters.....never have wished I had used one.
obik -- Ha-ha! Yes, sorry for the typo! Most of my night/twilight shots are without filters. But filters have been used on some without pronounced negative effects.
Herb -- You've been very lucky. I tried removing the defect with microfiber cloths and Singh Ray cleaning solution -- no change with minimal pressure and circular motion. That's how I found the tiny scratch in the glass surface -- much thinner than a hair, but there, and perhaps 3mm long. Since the Zeiss was one of my more valuable and expensive purchases, I'd been exceptionally careful of it, even leaving it home on occasion in favor of a cheaper lens that I was less cautious of. As I say, I've scratched several filters, and if they hadn't been in place, it would have been the lens instead.
I prefer to use no filter whenever possible. But it isn't always practical to do so.
douglasf13 wrote:
I think this is a major point. Many use lenses as simply tools, and others consider them assets...but I think most of us are somewhere in between.
Agreed. Until I know I'm going to be keeping a lens for the long run, I do tend to baby the lens much more, just in case it needs to get sold.
Along those lines while I never put filters (except for special effects) on my medium format glass, due to the size, nature, and cost of those puppies I babied those lenses and treated them with more care than I've ever done while handling 35mm SLR or rangefinder glass. Result - no damage despite years of use.
Maybe I'm a little more concerned about my small glass because they tend to get treated more roughly not to mention they stand to see a lot more use over the years.
Miker Reid wrote:
I always have my lens caps on when I am not shooting, even during a shoot I put them on and off...force of habit.
Myself I hate lens caps. I'll wander around with the front element (filtered or not) of a mounted lens exposed all day long. Caps go on when the lens goes in the bag, if then, and not a moment before.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Can you post an example? I really am not sure how this would be possible.
Not only possible, but inevitable. Adding a glass element with a different refractive index will inevitably cause dispersion the lens behind can't handle.
I keep UV filters on all my lenses all the time. The filters offer highest level of UV protection possible: they have black color and are completely opaque to UV and all other kinds of harmful radiation. They are also known as "caps" Only rarely I take them off: when I need to take a picture.
Jokes aside, I do use UV filters occasionally when I am afraid that the front glass might get wet, there is a lot of dust/sand in the air, etc... Mostly because I don't like to clean front glass without absolute need.
I put a clear protective filter or a UV filter on just about every lens. Whatever loss in clarity incurred is far outweighed by the protection from dust, wet and God knows what. I might remove the filter in a studio setting, but that is about it. I enjoy cleaning my filters - but I only clean my lenses about once a year - if that! I use B&W filters exclusively - $50-100 each on lenses that go $600-$2000 each - why not!
denoir wrote:
Not only possible, but inevitable. Adding a glass element with a different refractive index will inevitably cause dispersion the lens behind can't handle.
I would love to see an example or test. In my own testing and tests I've read, I've never seen that phenomena.
Lens: Leica 90 Cron, Filter: Hoya HD, I think. The results were better with a Leica filter (although there was still some degradation of quality)
Edit: By the way, if you want to see all forms of optical aberrations, put a Cokin (resin) filter in front of a high performance lens. One of my first posts ever on this forum was about that - I had just bought my first Zeiss ZE (21 Distagon) lens and was getting crap results. I never connected it to the filter but some other people here did. Once I stopped using the filter the improvement in image quality was spectacular
I take it off my 50mm frequently just because the 50 doesn't seem to play well with uv filters (the canon 1.4)
but otherwise I'll use them as long as I'm not seeing a negative effect. a uv filter saved my 24-105... walked away without a scratch, but the filter was shattered and bent. and that lens is beautiful with the filter on. bought a replacement the day I broke it...
FlyPenFly wrote:
Denoir: Are you sure the focus is the same? The left looks slightly out of focus compared to the right, especially the details on the roof.
Never trust others results, even when they are called Denoir. This is the easiest thing to test by yourself. Just put a camera on a tripod and take a photo with a filter and one without. Not saying that Luka does it on purpose, but I am sure if he wanted to prove that filters have no effect whatsoever, he would have showed another set of photos.
I'd never actually use any of them tho. 
Most of my night/twilight shots are without filters. But filters have been used on some without pronounced negative effects.