If you take reasonable care of your camera, a lens hod will offer ample protection in all but the harshest environments (ie the beach, wet places, etc.). If you really want to use a protection filter, then get a good quality multicoated UV filter. The UV portion really does nothing for a digital camera but they are essentially clear and cause an almost imperceptible reduction in light. But, for every air/glass surface you introduce in your light path, you increase your chances of lens flare and reduce your image contrast to some degree.....which is why the coatings are necessary as decrease the flare potential and resultant loss of image contrast. Don't get single or double coated....you want a multicoated filter, usually a seven layer coating..

I believe some companies also make what is called a protection filter, which is just a clear glass filter. In any event, you want the filter to be multicoated and to be made from optical glass....often times protection filters are made from plate glass, which is basically a window pane..

Buy from a reputable dealer, get a brand name filter and expect to pay between $20 and $30 for a good quality multicoated filter.JohnPentax *ist-D, K100D, Fuji F20/31fd, Oly Stylushttp://www.pbase.com/jglover..

Urbancowgirl wrote:.

I have heard it is a good idea to place a filter on your lens at alltimes so that the actual lens is protected very well from theelements.. more so than a hood......

This is a rather controversial topic. Many people, including myself, feel that a UV filter doesn't do any good and can do harm. Why waste money to make things worse?.

Here's a current thread about what can go wrong with a UV filter:http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=24292248.

Can someone please tell me which filter I should get....

If you feel that you must use a filter, buy a quality filter that is "coated". Uncoated filters are bad news for photos, as illustrated in the thread mentioned above...

I have heard it is a good idea to place a filter on your lens at alltimes so that the actual lens is protected very well from theelements.. more so than a hood..... can someone please tell me whichfilter I should get... I want it to be one at all time.... is there aname for something like this. I took a photography class and myteacher I believe said something about a filter to have on all thetime for protection...

Any help would begreat. thanks KiM.

Maybe your tutor said a skylight filter? I think this is the same thing as a UV filter... often used with 35mm film which is slightly sensitive to UV light to help cut through distant haze. Since sensors in digital cameras aren't UV sensitive, a UV / skylight filter won't improve the picture, but it will of course protect the front lens element (at the cost of a tiny decrease in image quality, which won;t be significant if you get a good multi-coated one)..

IMO a lens hood is just as good at protecting the front lens element from knocks (and usually comes free with the lens)... and will of course also minimise flare, which is what they are for. In the end it's a matter of personal preference... you don't have to do it because your tutor said so!Mike..

Mike703 wrote:.

Sincesensors in digital cameras aren't UV sensitive, a UV / skylightfilter won't improve the picture, but it will of course protect thefront lens element (at the cost of a tiny decrease in image quality,which won;t be significant if you get a good multi-coated one)..

Hmmm.. I'm another that believes filters of ANY kind should be left OFF, unless there is a specific requirement for some temporary use. I also believe that the damage done to image quality is greater than usually thought, so I certainly wouldn't dream of fitting a filter and leaving it on my camera..

If you *are* going to do it... (shrugs)....

..... get the best filter(s) you can, and keep them scrupulously clean!Regards,Baz..

Mike703 wrote:.

Maybe your tutor said a skylight filter? I think this is the samething as a UV filter....

No, it isn't. A UV filter is clear in visible light, but blocks ultraviolet. A skylight filter has a slight pink tint to it. With film, the skylight filter will counter the "bluing" effect of indirect light from the sky. With digital, it just makes the camera's white balance algorithm work harder to get a good result...

I shoot mostly outdoor sports and indoor concerts. Use UV or Skylight filter all the time for day time outdoor sports to block dust. Don't use filter indoor to prevent image quality degredation..

Of course circular polarized filter, graduated neutral density filter, star effect filters are used under special circumstances. I only use B+W filters (very expensive).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

- Pro freelancer taking assignments in sports, concert and any events, especially fun assignments.

- Daughter asked Mom: 'Is dad a full time photographer now? Does he still have his old job?'http://SoCalConcerts.PhotoReflect.com/http://AndreTorng.PhotoReflect.com/..

Nikon does not reccomend any uv or clear filters since their lens has an extra outside layer of coat clear glass as opposed to optical glass.I am going to order the nikon clear nc filter..

There's two camps... One for filters one against..

I have filters (clear) on my good lenses and that's for protection. I don't want to scratch the lens in the heat of the moment when I'm changing lenses fast and tossing them in my camera bag with the others..

Figure a hundred bucks or so for a good filter for protection. The cheap ones are just that, cheap.. and may degrade your image..

If you just have one or two lenses and you're never in a hurry or pressured for a quick change then I wouldn't bother with them..

Jim..

I think a UV filter left on all the time is a good idea for protection. Easier to clean and cheaper to replace than your lens. Buy one ($20 or so), take a bunch of test shots with and without it, and see for yourself if there is any discernable difference. If you don't like it, return it..

AndrewFort Worth, Texashttp://www.flickr.com/photos/ahightower..

A protective filter is like a condom, sometime you really need it sometime you don't, always handy to have one in the bag though..

Urbancowgirl wrote:.

I have heard it is a good idea to place a filter on your lens at alltimes so that the actual lens is protected very well from theelements.. more so than a hood..... can someone please tell me whichfilter I should get... I want it to be one at all time.... is there aname for something like this. I took a photography class and myteacher I believe said something about a filter to have on all thetime for protection...

Any help would begreat. thanks KiM..

Check your lens manual again..

Mf999 wrote:.

Nikon does not reccomend any uv or clear filters since their lens hasan extra outside layer of coat clear glass as opposed to opticalglass.I am going to order the nikon clear nc filter..

UV or Skylight. I always put one on first thing when getting a new lens.Jules.

Black moles do not destroy information...

Thanks for the clarification!.

Mike703 wrote:.

Maybe your tutor said a skylight filter? I think this is the samething as a UV filter....

No, it isn't. A UV filter is clear in visible light, but blocksultraviolet. A skylight filter has a slight pink tint to it. Withfilm, the skylight filter will counter the "bluing" effect ofindirect light from the sky. With digital, it just makes thecamera's white balance algorithm work harder to get a good result..

Mike..

A protective filter is like a condom, sometime you really need itsometime you don't, always handy to have one in the bag though..

... but if you put a condom over the lens it really will degrade the image quality...Mike..

Mike703 wrote:.

A protective filter is like a condom, sometime you really need itsometime you don't, always handy to have one in the bag though..

... but if you put a condom over the lens it really will degrade theimage quality....

Wow, you are a genius!.

Mike..

Wow, you are a genius!.

I know I are Mike..

Forget the "protection" filter. What's it going to protect - a little bit of dust?.

The "protection" filter was dreamt up no doubt by an enterprising camera salesman to add some extra $$ to his commission envelope..

Use a lens cap to protect the front element from scratches..

A lens hood will protect the front element from scratches / smudges and has the added benefit of reducing glare..

Use a blower to blow off dust..

Use a quality cleaning kit to take care of smudges..

Any time you put anything in front of the lens, you are degrading the image. The quality of the filter matters not, it simply affects the degree of the degradation. Flare / glare is always an issue whenever additional glass surfaces are introduced. Why ask for it in you photos?.

Use a filter for effect when absolutely necessary (ND, polarizer, star, etc)..

In extreme cases (such as dropping the lens), the "protection" filter can actually cause more harm than good. Even it doesn't, the lens is going to the repair shop (if you're lucky) one way or another..

~ The only things stopping us from reaching our goals are the limitations we place on ourselves ~..

Filter should be OK for protection, but make sure you get a good quality one, otherwise IQ will suffer...http://budding-nature-photographer.blogspot.com/..

... just like in the army with a condom over a rifle barrel muzzle a condom will keep the mud, dirt and junk off your lens until good to go....

(just kidding)..

Uncleskull wrote:.

Any time you put anything in front of the lens, you are degrading theimage. The quality of the filter matters not, it simply affects thedegree of the degradation..

So according to you whatever situations you are in, never ever use a filter it will noticeably degrade your images..

Ok, you tell me which of those 100% crop photos have been shot with a Hoya SHMC filter?.

Http://www.flickr.com/...tos//...tos/38519080@N00/361336214/in/set-72157594498289778/.

I would like to stress though that I am not advocating having a permanent filter...

Unskill, I don't agree with most of what you say. The danger of scratching your lens permanently occurs when you are using the camera. not when it has the lens cap on. I of course store the camera with the cap on. You are not protecting the lens against a little bit of dust bust against tiny particles of sharp grit that can an do get wipped against the lens and scratch it. If you use your camera a lot and use it outdoors in all sorts of conditions, over time the lens WILL get scratched..

A high quality filter will not degrage you picture and I defy you to see any difference between a shot shot with and without. We shoot proffessionally in the stufio with a D2x with filter and make a very good living + protection the expensive lens thanks..

You can spend time wipping your lens with cloths that just might be contaminated with minute sharp grit that you wont see until that lovely scratch appears, and using expensive cleaning kits if you want but I'll do it my way and replace the filter every few years thanks.Jules.

Uncleskull wrote:.

Forget the "protection" filter. What's it going to protect - a littlebit of dust?.

The "protection" filter was dreamt up no doubt by an enterprisingcamera salesman to add some extra $$ to his commission envelope..

Use a lens cap to protect the front element from scratches..

A lens hood will protect the front element from scratches / smudgesand has the added benefit of reducing glare..

Use a blower to blow off dust..

Use a quality cleaning kit to take care of smudges..

Any time you put anything in front of the lens, you are degrading theimage. The quality of the filter matters not, it simply affects thedegree of the degradation. Flare / glare is always an issue wheneveradditional glass surfaces are introduced. Why ask for it in youphotos?.

Use a filter for effect when absolutely necessary (ND, polarizer,star, etc)..

In extreme cases (such as dropping the lens), the "protection" filtercan actually cause more harm than good. Even it doesn't, the lens isgoing to the repair shop (if you're lucky) one way or another..

~ The only things stopping us from reaching our goals are the limitations we place on ourselves ~.

Black moles do not destroy information...

The first thing the teachers told us at college was to get rid of the filters. Their reasons were the same as some of the others..

Between college experience, working in camera stores for years, and no working with cameras that are really exposed to elements in a natural resources role. I have never seen anything to make me think that a "protection" filter is anything more than a waste of money. All the damaged lenses I have seen would not have been saved or helped by a filter and in fact one I can think of would have avoided the reapair shop if a filter hadn't been present..

Someone in a past discssuion mentioned photographing welding? This might be a specific application that would require extra protection..

So IMO.

If you take proper care while using the camera, and storing the camera you will not scratch your lens. If you drop it or wack it against a rock that filter won't help..

CheersJames.

Urbancowgirl wrote:.

I have heard it is a good idea to place a filter on your lens at alltimes so that the actual lens is protected very well from theelements.. more so than a hood..... can someone please tell me whichfilter I should get... I want it to be one at all time.... is there aname for something like this. I took a photography class and myteacher I believe said something about a filter to have on all thetime for protection...

Any help would begreat. thanks KiM..

I think the "protection" aspect of filters is based on a lot of FUD. Stories of damage prevented by a filter that wouldn't have been prevented by a lens shade (or cap, if not actively shooting) are pretty rare, and so filters boil down to insurance. You likely don't need it; can you afford to take the chance ? .

Filters *can* negatively impact picture quality, particularly cheap ones (uncoated or single coated) and in certainly lighting conditions. You can use a decent (doesn't have to be too expensive) multicoated UV or clear filter, along with lens shade, and pay attention to lighting that's likely to cause flare, and probably never regret it..

Personally, after 15 years of the "no filters except CPOL when needed" mantra, I'm using multicoated UV/clear filters on most of my lenses now (still need to pick up 1 or 2) simply because I'd rather dunk a filter in soapy water and clean it off than deal with the hassles of trying to get the front element of my lenses clean without scratching them. For some people, that's second nature. To me, it's a bigger bother than worrying about a bit of flare now & again..

If you do opt to use filters, read up on multicoated ... don't stack filters (i.e. remove the protecitive filter if you use a CPOL) ... and then whether you choose to use them or not, don't worry about your decision. So many photographers are so sure that each solution is right that there's no way either of them can be wrong..

- DennisGallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com..

Forget the filter. Use the lens hood..

I only use a quality B+W multicoated UV when out in inclement weather and have to frequently wipe the front clean..

I've got lenses over 30y/old that have almost never had a filter on the front, no scraches.A member of the rabble in good standing...

This is such a dumb statement (below) LM1..

Yes, great, you protect the lens when you are NOT using it. Wow isn't that just useful????? How about the rare time when you are actually using it eh?.

Jules.

LM1 wrote:.

Forget the filter. Use the lens hood...

Lots of views James but no facts to back them up..

A filter completely protects an expensive lens from scratches and doesn't perceptively reduce the quality of your images..

How can that be a waste of time I ask? It's a plus in my humble view and I've done it whith every camera I've ever owned of which I've lost count. Eacj one them ended up with a pristine unmarked, unscratched, unblurred lens after many years use..

But if you prefer to wipe your with your grit stained hankerchief, be my guest. I guess you'd never dare take you camera out in wet weather or a desert or beach in high winds would you? Just the garden in summer on a nice day I guess for you.Jules.

James Arnold 1971 wrote:.

The first thing the teachers told us at college was to get rid of thefilters. Their reasons were the same as some of the others..

Between college experience, working in camera stores for years, andno working with cameras that are really exposed to elements in anatural resources role. I have never seen anything to make me thinkthat a "protection" filter is anything more than a waste of money.All the damaged lenses I have seen would not have been saved orhelped by a filter and in fact one I can think of would have avoidedthe reapair shop if a filter hadn't been present..

Someone in a past discssuion mentioned photographing welding? Thismight be a specific application that would require extra protection..

So IMO.

If you take proper care while using the camera, and storing thecamera you will not scratch your lens. If you drop it or wack itagainst a rock that filter won't help..

CheersJames..

Read this:.

Http://bythom.com/filters.htm.

I do own good filters for my lenses (Hoya, B+W) but I don't use it normally. I do however ALWAYS use lens hoods..

I do make one exception is when I shoot in beaches. I use filter to prevent salt, sand, wind to damage the front element. Other than that, it is just blower + microfiber cloth to clean the lens..

Johnnyhttp://tuxbailey.zenfolio.com..

Each of us have their own opinion, and this topic has been argued ad infinitum..

Again, it depends on how you treat your camera, where you take it, and what you shoot..

There's not a day that has gone by where I have not benefited from a UV filter in the type of shooting I do. In any wet, dusty, or muddy condition, a UV filter is a must. I clean my filter perhaps twice during a day in a severe shooting condition, and if you multiply that by the number of days, you're really wishing you were cleaning a UV filter and not the front element. If you scratch the UV filter, buy a new one for a fraction of the cost $$.$$. If you scratch the front element, most likely it will be more economical to buy a new lense. $$$.$$.

Now the above response if for specific shooting conditions, perhaps none of which the OP will be involved in..

I think it's good to voice our own opinions here, so the OP can see the reasons why we do or do not use a UV filter. The decision is not based on a friend's recommendation, nor a photography teacher or professor. It is the type of shooting YOU do that merits the use of the filter.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

JulesJ wrote:.

Lots of views James but no facts to back them up..

Yes it is views or opinions Jules.

A filter completely protects an expensive lens from scratches anddoesn't perceptively reduce the quality of your images..

This in fact is not a fact it's just your opinion or view as well...

How can that be a waste of time I ask? It's a plus in my humble viewand I've done it whith every camera I've ever owned of which I'velost count. Eacj one them ended up with a pristine unmarked,unscratched, unblurred lens after many years use..

I think it's waste of money not time. I have never used one since highschool, and have also never scratched a lens, at home, or at work..

But if you prefer to wipe your with your grit stained hankerchief, bemy guest. I guess you'd never dare take you camera out in wet weatheror a desert or beach in high winds would you? Just the garden insummer on a nice day I guess for you..

What on earth compelled you to make this statement? Do you think sarcastic attacks elevate your opinion to fact? Do you think this is how one disucesses or debates a subject. Did I say anything, attack, or comment on your opinion, no. I certainly never made a personal attack on you or what you photograph. I was responding to the OP, you felt compelled to coment on whay I said fine, can you do it like an adult. Or are you so humble that you simply can't stand opions that differ from yours..

Grow up and get over yourself Jules..

James..

Well said Tim!.

And I totally agree that if your shooting coniditions warrant it pick one up. The nastiest shooting I do is of sailing (from on the water, in wind!!). Never felt the need to put a filter on yet. When on the beach I am way more worried about sand getting in the barrel than on the lens (although I am careful to when cleaning the lens afterward)..

Never had to shoot in really dusty conditions, or muddyones (where I was afraid of getting mud on the lens)? How do you protect the rest of the lens in conditions where mud might actually get on it/ How do you clean the rest of the lens after mud has goten on it..

When I was working in the camera store the number 1 reason lenses came in damaged was becuase of sand, dust or other grime in mechanical portion of the lens? This IMO is more of a problem than the chance of scratching the front element..

I saw to my memory 1 that was scratched ironically by the broken galss of a filter after an impact, and one that had been left on a picnic table during a thunderstorm (could have been turned in to a home for sea monkeys!)..

CheersJames.

Timskis6 wrote:.

Each of us have their own opinion, and this topic has been argued adinfinitum..

Again, it depends on how you treat your camera, where you take it,and what you shoot..

There's not a day that has gone by where I have not benefited from aUV filter in the type of shooting I do. In any wet, dusty, or muddycondition, a UV filter is a must. I clean my filter perhaps twiceduring a day in a severe shooting condition, and if you multiply thatby the number of days, you're really wishing you were cleaning a UVfilter and not the front element. If you scratch the UV filter, buya new one for a fraction of the cost $$.$$. If you scratch the frontelement, most likely it will be more economical to buy a new lense.$$$.$$.

Now the above response if for specific shooting conditions, perhapsnone of which the OP will be involved in..

I think it's good to voice our own opinions here, so the OP can seethe reasons why we do or do not use a UV filter. The decision is notbased on a friend's recommendation, nor a photography teacher orprofessor. It is the type of shooting YOU do that merits the use ofthe filter.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

I wasn't intending to attack you I just get passionate about such subjects and use the language as I see fit. I have a hard skin and expect others who want to make their points on this forum to as well..

You've made your point and that's fine. But if you do actually use your camera in all sorts of conditions, you will get stuff on the lens, even if it's only rain, that will require cleaning. And however you clean your lens, which is an incredible delicate instrument, I think it is nigh on impossible to do it without marking that factory finish. That is if it isn't marked already.But as someone said we've already argued this to death so I will go away now.Jules.

James Arnold 1971 wrote:.

JulesJ wrote:.

Lots of views James but no facts to back them up..

Yes it is views or opinions Jules.

A filter completely protects an expensive lens from scratches anddoesn't perceptively reduce the quality of your images..

This in fact is not a fact it's just your opinion or view as well...

How can that be a waste of time I ask? It's a plus in my humble viewand I've done it whith every camera I've ever owned of which I'velost count. Eacj one them ended up with a pristine unmarked,unscratched, unblurred lens after many years use..

I think it's waste of money not time. I have never used one sincehighschool, and have also never scratched a lens, at home, or at work..

But if you prefer to wipe your with your grit stained hankerchief, bemy guest. I guess you'd never dare take you camera out in wet weatheror a desert or beach in high winds would you? Just the garden insummer on a nice day I guess for you..

What on earth compelled you to make this statement? Do you thinksarcastic attacks elevate your opinion to fact? Do you think this ishow one disucesses or debates a subject. Did I say anything, attack,or comment on your opinion, no. I certainly never made a personalattack on you or what you photograph. I was responding to the OP, youfelt compelled to coment on whay I said fine, can you do it like anadult. Or are you so humble that you simply can't stand opions thatdiffer from yours..

Grow up and get over yourself Jules..

James.

Black moles do not destroy information...

Filter or no filter that's a personal issue..

I personally respect anyones opinions and style. When someone is just expressing his style and opinion, it is a good thing because he is sharing his experience. But when someone comes along with that kind of attitude: My style is the one, if you do the opposite your photos will be ruined etc etc, he is just expressing his insecurity. Filter or no filter is a personal choice, please leave it like that, dont force anything down anyones throat...

Some timid souls wear both. What you, or anyone else wears is of no concern or interest to me. Same is true of the lens hood/protective filter debate. I am amused at the passion, even anger, this topic always generates...

I was informed that one should get a UV filter..

I did not have much money so I bought a very cheap UV filter ..

I paid Rs 50 INR for it (close to USD 1). I am sure this is just a peice of glass and would not stop any UV or anything like that.

I tried taking pictures with and without the UV filter. I was not able to make out any difference in the pictures..

Please see the pictures at http://www.TheIndianPhotoGrapher.blogspot.com.

My question is would using a super cheap UV filter or glass or whatever harm anything in the camera?.

I reason I am using this is coz the dust sticks to the lens. I rather have the dust sticking to the filter (which I can clean more easiliy than the lens).

Just wash it!! *grin*..

No anger from me Fred, I just like a good bit of crack as the Irish say.Jules.

Fred Klaiss wrote:.

Some timid souls wear both. What you, or anyone else wears is of noconcern or interest to me. Same is true of the lens hood/protectivefilter debate. I am amused at the passion, even anger, this topicalways generates..

Black moles do not destroy information...

JulesJ wrote:.

Lots of views James but no facts to back them up.A filter completely protects an expensive lens from scratches anddoesn't perceptively reduce the quality of your images.How can that be a waste of time I ask? It's a plus in my humble viewand I've done it whith every camera I've ever owned of which I'velost count. Eacj one them ended up with a pristine unmarked,unscratched, unblurred lens after many years use.but if you prefer to wipe your with your grit stained hankerchief, bemy guest. I guess you'd never dare take you camera out in wet weatheror a desert or beach in high winds would you? Just the garden insummer on a nice day I guess for you.Jules.

I'm with you on this one. Because my lens has never been uncovered it's never had to be cleaned. Never... I take care cleaning the filter but if that gets wrecked I could care less. My 600$ lens is a different story..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Fred Klaiss wrote:.

Some timid souls wear both. What you, or anyone else wears is of noconcern or interest to me. Same is true of the lens hood/protectivefilter debate. I am amused at the passion, even anger, this topicalways generates..

It is mainly because some have a tribal mentality, if you are not from the same tribe, they kill you, and it is more often a mixture of ignorance and insecurity...