how important is UV filter for dust protection

[arthur]

I got my 17-40L and I'm worried that maybe I shouldn't use it without a UV filter for dust protection (read the booklet). How big a deal is not having a UV filter?

I just hate plunking down the extra 40 bucks or whatever. I'm not worried about scratches.

[Holly]

I personally don't use filters on any of my lenses. Why cover up a $1,200.00 piece of glass with a $40 piece of glass? Not that I have any, but you mentioned "L" glass When shooting film, I did use filters more for the effects, but now that I am digital, I don't.

[suzyjazz]

I hardly ever use filters. Just a hood on my most valuable lens. But I am no expert.

[srwatters]

Put a hoody on you woody?

I quit using filters as well. I prefer my big nikkor glass nude. I also use the hood nearly all the time as well. BTW, it makes the lens look bigger too

YMMV

[PhotoByMark]

I too have tended to not use filters on my lenses. I would consider keeping one around though if you are shooting in very harsh conditions.

[markperez]

If using a UV filter does not reduce the quality then way not use it to have that added protecting.

[Seb]

Interesting. For those using L-glass, have you seen any ill-effects by using UV filters?

I have two L-lenses (70-200 f2.8LIS and 16-35f2.8L) and they are both protected by the HOYA S-HMC filters (I also have one on the 50mm f1.4). From what I understand, using the highly coated filters removes reflections. Am I "wasting" my lenses? I guess what I am looking for is if someone actually has some examples to show a difference ... I might do some tests, but all my lenses wear HOYA S-HMCs.

S

[srwatters]

Check the amount of light the filter passes. If it's 98%, then you lose 2% of the possible light. Is that too much? I don't know. I tend to agree about putting a $40 filter in front of $1600 worth of glass. Just doesn't seem right. I might try to buy a high end filter for my new 28-70mm f/2.8 just to to a test with and without, but at $100, it's a bit of an expensive experiment.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

[AjP]

I use either clear filter or good UV, mainly for lens protection and it is much easier to replease the filter the glass as well as clean it. IMHO

[Hogleg 44]

I have uv filters on a few lenses, but I'm not buying any more. I Always use the hoods, and since I almost never take pictures in any kind if harsh conditions I think the hood provides adequate protection for the glass. And, the filter is just another piece of glass the light has to pass through.

[dminton]

With the exception of some old metal Nikon super tele ones and the new Canon Carbon Fiber super tele ones, lens hoods are primarily plastic and break easier than you think. (especially Canon) We had a photog get run over at a basketball game a few years ago, and when she got knocked down the hood on her 24-70 2.8L hit the floor and litterally shattered into a billion pieces. The lens then had nothing in front of it and slammed into the floor. (this is with a 200 pound basketball player and a 140 pound photographer on top of the lens.) It bent the lens barrel lip and now you can't put a filter or hood on it. A $40 filter would have taken the impact and gottten bent ot hell, but the lens itself would ave survived. I also had a a strap break, and a 10D with a 17-35 2.8L fall on the parking lot. Thud. Crap. The UV filter took the impact and was torn a new one, but he lens was unscathed. I hd the hood turned around cause I had juast taken it out of the bag. Don't trust a lens hood, use a filter.

[Marbean]

If I'm out shooting and you see a filter on my lens, it is for effect and 90% of the time it will be a polarizer. Two weeks ago in Palo Duro Canyon I used a UV Haze filter. Again, effect.

The only time I think about filters and protection is when I'm shooting in the rain. Then I will use either a Canon Skylight 1x or a Canon UV Haze (L-39 Sharp Cut) and a rain hood.

The original question was about dust protection. If you are worried about dirt entering your lens I don't think it is that big of a problem unless you are shooting in very dusty conditions. If I were in a dust storm in Amarillo or Lajitas I would have a filter on my lens.

The pros and cons for using filters as protection will rage on forever.

[OversighT]

I used to keep a UV filter on my lens, but ended up seeing ghost reflections at bad times (see the attachment). After diagnosing the problem I stopped using UV filters and just pay more attention to the end of my lens. If I'm not shooting I put a lens cap on and that has worked well for me.


T.

[arthur]

thanks for all the great input.

[bbailey]

Originally Posted by srwatters

Check the amount of light the filter passes. If it's 98%, then you lose 2% of the possible light. Is that too much? I don't know. I tend to agree about putting a $40 filter in front of $1600 worth of glass. Just doesn't seem right. I might try to buy a high end filter for my new 28-70mm f/2.8 just to to a test with and without, but at $100, it's a bit of an expensive experiment.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

You might try it with the non "Pro-1" version for about $53, which is the same quality I think, but not as thin. The ultra thins are aimed at wide angle lenses to help prevent vigenetting. I don't know if the 28mm would require a ultra-thin filter though. And if you ever picked up a wider lense, the Pro-1 would come in handy.

Oh, and to answer the post, I got a 77 S-HMC filter with my 100-400. I don't plan on using it all the time, just when I'm someplace where the wind and sand or salt would be troublesome.