UV or Protector

I want to get a filter to protect lenses when I am shooting in adverse conditions (and perhaps to keep on permanently, depending on its optical impact).

Now I know an awful lot of people use UVs as protectors - and I was advised to purchase these when I bought the K10D kit (but didn't). However, my mate - who is a professional photographer - said that it was much better to get protector filters, as - with these being made of clear glass - they have less impact on output than a UV. When I mentioned to this to the bloke at the camera shop he pooh-poohed it.

Has anyone got any thoughts as to who is right?

I went through a similar discussion a few months back ...

The general conclusion was yes, fit one and the Protector is enough as UV does not affect the sensor in the same way it affected film.

Which ever you go for, choose a good quality one such as the Hoya Pro1D - they are being sold off as the new HD is becoming available.

A UV filter will have no impact on general photography. I use Pentax SMC ones (they come up on eBay regularly) which are quite expensive because I see no point in puting cheap glass in front of a good lens. I did once let a lens fall six inches from the top of a camera bag onto a carpeted floor, the filter smashed and damaged the front element. I believe that if there had been no filter then there would have been no damage. So I do use them in dusty conditions or salt water spray etc. and do tend to leave them on but I dont belong to the camp that thinks they will protect against impact damage.

nice to have, when tou are taping plastic baggie over your camera in the rain, sea spray, sandstorm etc.

in twenty years, never damaged a lens element by accident or cleaning yet.

have heard stories from trustworthy people the echo what Gartmore said. also heard storries of people wreckin a lens trying to remove a dented filter, from a slight impact, that would've left the sturdier lens barrel intact.
Good luck.

A clean UV filter has such little affect with digital photography that you can use a UV filter purely for protection all the time if you wish. You might as well get a UV filter instead of clear glass if it is cheaper.

I have stopped using filters as protection because there's an extra two surfaces to keep clean. Another argument against is that a filter (especially a thin "Pro" one) is more fragile than a lens front element, so will be more lilkely to break, and and may scratch the lens when it does.

(I'm not sure that last argument convinces me, but at least it's one more possible factor to think about).

If one is careless with any filter, when it breaks, do you really want splinters of glass ruining the coatings of your lens?

I run my lenses starkers, to date without drama, I only use a filter if it adds to the image in some way.

Starkers for me two..

Please don't forget rigid sun shades.

If you are looking for lens protection, these should be a serious consideration - plus they benefit by helping to prevent flare.

I'm convinced that they also improve metering, though I can't prove it.

I've just counted, and I own 26 filters - from B&W, Pentax and Hoya Pro - UV, Warming, Neutral Grey, Sunlight, Blue, and of course, many polarizers. With digital cameras, I find the benefits of UV, Sunlight and Blue unnecessary. With ultra wide lenses, polarizers can be very tricky.

I just looked in my camera bag and I only carry a high quality polarizer and ND now.

But ALL my lenses have sun shades.

Just my humble opinion.

Mac is right. A solid sun shade is more important that a filter for lens protection. I always put on the sun shade, even for indoor photography, and it has probably saved my lens from scratches bumping into door frames, furniture, people, etc.

But how about where Dr Mhuni works in harsh semi desert conditions? I can see why he might want a filter for protection. I don't use one but I do use the lens hood. However I can see that in a dusty environment I'd maybe get a filter.

Mike

Point taken Mike, and I'll certainly defer to the good doctor's decision here.

However, I think I'd be more worried about driven sand and dust getting INSIDE the lens than abrading the tough SMC coating of the main element. I may be wrong, but I'd guess very little dust gets inside the lens body via the front element seal - more likely through the zoom and focusing collars and rings. Maybe this is where the weather sealing on the newer lenses is a big plus?

As for dust on the front element, I'd use a blower. I'll bet the coatings on the lenses are way harder than the coatings on even the most expensive filters.

How about our other desert dwellers?

Until someone here mentioned it I had never thought about how zooms suck dust in. Not much I am do about that as I can't afford the weather sealed lenses.

Mike

Actually much of Ethiopia is quite lush, though this doesn't stop it getting dusty. And I reckon Mac's quite right - in that the real danger is probably more dust getting in through the zoom casing than threat to the front element. No problems on that score yet, although I haven't been anywhere too extreme yet. Thought a protector would come in handy when I did (will also be near the sea in UK/Greece in Dec/Jan and thought one might come in handy there).

So far I've gone starkers too (apart from the lens hoods, which I've used religiously and which have saved my bacon at least once) and have suffered no damage to the front elements.

By the way, what is a sun shade? Haven't come across these before and they sound like they'd come in handy out here.

It's a lens hood.