Re>Is there a logical explaination?<.
They're scardy cats?.
Or, and this makes more sense, they are near water, either lakes and rivers, which are bad enough, or the ocean..
I used to believe that these filtrs would make for clearer pictures of mountains on hazy days, but that never seemed to work..
I like to use lens hoods, because they do actually provide protection from physical bumps. In fact, I may buy a replacement hood later today it'll be a cheap rubber one..
I've seen in more than one post people using UV filters as lenprotection sometimes listing them as protection from dust and water.It may be that I have never been in their situation and had aproblem, but I have never used one for protection and never had aproblem that having a UV filter would have made a difference. Isthere a logical explaination?Tim.
This one of those issues where people are divided. Either you're a person that uses filters, or you're a person that does not..
People that use them claim that they protect the front lens elements from getting dirty or damaged. It's cheaper to replace a filter than a lens if anything were to happen. It's better to clean a filter (over time cleaning removes coatings) than the lens because again it's cheaper to replace the filter. They will claim that there's really no noticeable IQ difference..
People that don't use them claim lens hoods will do just as good or better at protecting the lens. After all, putting [relatively] cheap filters on an expensive lens will ruin the IQ, cause flare, reflections, ghosting. Modern day coatings are also much harder and less likely to come off with cleaning..
Also, I think your shooting situation will also kind of dictate whether or not you use filters. People who often shoot in dusty conditions or near the ocean will use a filter. If shooting conditions are more pleasant/controlled then no filter...
So.. To each his/her own...
'I reject your reality and substitute my own' -Adam Savagehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/mrnoronha/sets/..
I live 200 feet off of the Chesapeake Bay, I looking at it right now and I've never had any problem. Although the bay doesn't splash up in your face and if it did I would just tape a plastic bag around my camera. I like the scaredy cat answer or I reject your reality and substitute my own.Tim..
I've seen in more than one post people using UV filters as lenprotection sometimes listing them as protection from dust and water.It may be that I have never been in their situation and had aproblem, but I have never used one for protection and never had aproblem that having a UV filter would have made a difference. Isthere a logical explaination?.
In most cases, it is useless or worse. From personal experience, in most cases, the UV filters just degrade the image quality. When I began buying expensive lenses, I did imediately put a protective filter on. Well, not anymore. I am 100% AGAINST filters "for protection"..
On the other hand, there are situations where filters are good/needed. I always slap a filter on when going in the mountains in the winter. Eventually, ice forms on the filter surface, but it is easy to remove, since the filter surface is flat..
Other situation is seawater spray. And other might exist, as well..
However, I found that even quite expensive filters degrade the image quality, especially in demanding situations..
If you're using a $100 lense I wouldn't be too worried about it - you can replace it fairly easily at a pretty low cost. Putting a $40-$60 filter on it doesn't make sense, either..
If you're using an $800 lense (or more expensive), it makes sense to protect your investment when needed. It is much easier, and costs much less, to replace a $60 67mm filter than to replace the entire lense or have it sent out to replace the front element..
When I was traveling a few months back I was taking some close up candids of Fijian school children using a 50-200mm f/2.8-f/3.5 lense (about $850). While I had the camera hanging down, one child reached up and smudged the front UV filter with his dirty (dirt-caked) hands, scratching the front glass. It wasn't a bad scratch, but something that would have been needed to be fixed. I replaced the front filter for about $60, it didn't break the bank, and I wasn't out a lense while it otherwise would have been shipped away for repairs..
Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..
Well, I'm certinaly glad this was a $20 filter, not a $400 lens.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
I have run my own tests and do not seem any difference in IQ between the UV Fiter and naked lens..
OK...My lenses costs 1200, my filters costs 70 which would you rather replace? ).
When I'm shooting, I'm constantly cleaning my lenses (comes with being a yachting photographer)...So, would I rather wipe the salt encrusted 70 UV filter or the front element of my 1200 lenses with my T shirt or chamois leather ? .
As it is, I don't have to buy a special "lens cloth" (not that I ever did) I can use any soft cloth to clean my UV filters..
All I can say that if you haven't been is a situation where you need to clean you lenses then may be you should get out more ) (joke) don't you get any fluff in your camera bag? or on your lenses? Everytime you clean your front element you risk scratching it...I don't see it's worth the risk, for the sake of using a filter..
Another reason often over looked is that it's not just to protect the glass, but it also protects the filter screw...any slight knock on it can sometimes bend the end of the lens and stop you putting any filters on the end..
The only time I don't use UV filters (i.e. I take the off, shoot and put them back on) is when I'm shooting sun rises and sunsets and shooting directly into the sun just to reduce the glare=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-http://grahamsnook.wordpress.com/..
I use a bag with a hammock so I rarely do more than use a soft lens brush to get any lint removed, I also never leave my camera setting around on a table, etc where the lens would acculate smoke (I smoke) or other films of debris. Well atleast I got my answer, thanks to all.End of RantTim..
Here is a link to an informal test I did some time ago.http://vette74.smugmug.com/gallery/1669795#81819307.