Do you use a UV filter on your lens?

[mhuk]

Do you use a UV filter to protect your lens?

Half of me thinks it's a good idea to buy a UV filter to protect my lens, the other half thinks if I've just spent a lot of money on nice Canon glass will I reduce the image quality with a Hoya UV filter?

[rolf]

Yes I do on my Bigma, as there's a lot of open glass to scratch, also on my 70-300 Zuiko, but I have a polarising filter on my little 14-42mm.


Perhaps there ought to be an option for other filter, or change the option to UV or polarising.

[mhuk]

It's more the protection vs image quality issue that concerns me rather than filters per se.

Is spending £40 to protect a £700 lens a good idea?

Also, I don't seem to be able to edit the poll to add "I use another filter".

[Chocky]

I have a Cir-Polarizing filter but I find the images slightly blurred so don't use it much/.I didn't find it doing much for white butterflies either.
This is what I have Hama Polarising Filter Circular - 67mm £30.99 - Free Delivery

Mine is a 52 for one lens and I have a Hoya 58 for my biger lens

[rolf]

OK, done that for you.

My way of thinking is the filter can be as dirty as anything and the photos are still clear, the big lens acts like a vacuum pump and fills with dust, but you can't see it, as it isn't in focus. I'd rather damage the filter than the front glass, but I do take it off occasionally.

[mhuk]

That's kind of my thinking although the lens in question is 17-55mm so the dust/ dirt issue may be more of issue at that focal length?

Maybe I should bite the bullet, buy one and test it. But a 77mm Hoya UV filter isn't cheap

(They seemed to be the best in this test.)

[rolf]

I've got a Sigma 86mm on my Bigma lens, seems to be a good filter, but have never used the lens without, so may try a tripod comparison shot to see if there's a perceivable difference.

[joe]

With modern cameras there is no need for UV filters, Skylight or absolutely clear filters are ok for protecting the front element of a lens and is certainly worth the investment to save the lens.
I recently had my Sigma lens repaired (I dropped it) the filter was wrecked but the front element was not even scratched.The image stabiliser in the was damaged.
Joe

[Sydney2]

UV filter cuts through the atmosphire helpful with a long lens, Protection is a good reason for having it, A cheap one reduces the quality of the lens

[pluckyfilly]

some years ago when I was fitter I had the 80-400 sigma lens and attached was a UV filter - good job as getting down the steps to board a boat my hubs had an accident and dropped my camera bag inside which was the lens and camera, I didnt realise but the filter smashed and without it that would have been my lens gone for a burton and very expensive to repair or replace - my answer to your question is YES without doubt and NO I didnt notice any loss of quality in my pictures. I was going to the Farnes at the time and I always have a filter on my lens.

[Goldfynche]

I have a multi coated UV filter permanently attached to both of my zoom lenses, plus a polarising filter, in the bag, for both lenses.
Hi to all BTW. I've just joined.