Site Supporter
- Followers
- 21
- Following
- 1
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2021
- Posts
- 4,944
- Likes Received
- 3,824
- Name
- Tim
- Country
- United States
- City/State
- SE Michigan
LOL. Two words: Drag Strip.Roger Cicala at LensRentals has written a lot about using lens filters as protection, and has argued both sides of the case. He has crates of front elements they have had to replace, and he points out that sometimes the front element replacement can be a third of the price of a new lens (or more). He has demonstrated that using a cheap filter can be a terrible choice (some of them do terrible things to image quality). He even measured the transmissivity (I think that's the word) of a whole range of filters.
In film days, using a UV or Skylight or Haze filter made sense - UV could fog your fim. No sense for digital because UV has no effect on a digital sensor. So the smart choice, if you are using digital, is to go for a purpose-made protective filter - they use hardened glass or even transparent ceramic. Worth using if a $100 or $200 protective filter can save you replacing a $1500 front group, especially if you are going to be shooting in an environment with wind blown abrasive material (like a beach with fine sand, or a salt lake, or some industrial sites like a place working on manufactured stone).
For what it's worth, I don't use protective filters these days, but I do use the lens hoods all the time, and that has saved my lens once already. If I were thinking of shooting on a beach, though, I'd think about a filter.
Still never had a problem, won't use one. Hood only except for that infernal polarizer.