Are you using a filter on your 40mm

[brad-man]

I shoot at or near the beach frequently. The XS-Pro is very low profile and easy to clean. For $33, it's is a no-brainer for me....


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756154-REG/B_W_1066117_52mm_Ultraviolet_UV_MC.html

[Rienzphotoz]

I have B&W Clear filter on all my lenses, no exception for shorty

Sorry, I have to ask. Why? The cost of a decent filter is about half that of the lens. And the front end doesn't seem too vulnerable. I know the hood is ridiculous for the shorty but does it need protection?

I have a B+W filter on every single lens ... why? I shoot a lot in the desert and where I live dust is flying around everywhere ... all lenses need protection, the question is not about money but about not being able to make an image because of broken and/or scratched up lens front element ... BTW a decent filter does NOT "cost half that of the lens" ... one of the best filters out there is B+W XS Pro costs only $33 ... B+W UV filter costs only $20 ... Tiffin UV Protector filter costs only $5. So I am not sure what decent filter you are talking about that costs half of the lens.

Ok fair enough, you use a filter to keep out the dirt. But my point is why does a person who is not running around the desert and is just out doing basic street photography need a filter on their shorty?

As I said earlier, "all lenses need protection" ... even if you are "not running around the desert" ... OK lets imagine the following scenarios:
You are carrying only 1 lens (or the only lens that covers 40mm) and you have a small accident, could be dirt, oil, grease whatever on the lens ... OR you come out of a nice warm car into a cold outdoor environment or vice versa (this happened to me on quite a few occasions), you see a fantastic photo opportunity, but your darned lens is foggy due to the temperature change, which one of the following would you feel is safer, faster and/or comfortable to do:
a. Search, pull out and clean the lens with micro fiber cloth that is good enough not to scratch the front element?
b. wipe the filter with your shirt or even a tissue?

All lenses do not need protection.

If you say so ... its your equipment, your rules.

Does my P&S need a filter too?

That's a question you have to ask yourself. But none of my P&S can take filters ... if they could, I would.

My point is where do you draw the line between protecting an investment and overprotecting something that is almost disposable?

If the lens can take a filter, I'll have one on it, that's where I draw the line.
None of my lenses and/or cameras are disposable or "almost" disposable ... they are all valuable tools which I want to protect so I am not caught offgaurd by not being able to make a picture. It's not about money, its about not being able to make a picture at a given situation.

Surely a small rubber hood would do that?

Not for me.

Why pay $33 for a UV filter for my 50mm lens that cost about $80?

I've already answered this question earlier.
BTW, I had a $19 B+W filter on my 50 f/1.8 lens that cost me $99

By your theory it must be protected right?

As far as my lenses are concerned, that's a resounding YES! ... but that's just me ...  as I said, your equipment your rules, my equipment my rules.

[pwp]

There's a clear filter & hood on mine. It's the habit of a lifetime. Why stop now?

As it turns out the lens is incredibly well protected, clear filter or otherwise. It spends just about all it's time on my studio shelf, safe from scratches, dust, rain and even accidental usage. 

The 40 was an impulsive, inexpensive novelty purchase which actually surprised me with the quality of the image files it delivers. But I'd probably give it to someone who asked me nicely enough...it just doesn't get used.

-PW

[drmikeinpdx]

This is definitely a YMMV situation.  I never use filters and never get scratches.  Hardly ever have to even clean the front elements.  Guess I'm just a careful guy.  Oh, and I rarely use lens hoods, since I don't shoot into the sun. 

Today I met up with a fellow from Craigslist and bought a 200 2.8 L lens from him.  I used my pancake lens as a body cap for my 5D3.   

[J.R.]

As it turns out the lens is incredibly well protected, clear filter or otherwise. It spends just about all it's time on my studio shelf, safe from scratches, dust, rain and even accidental usage. 

The 40 was an impulsive, inexpensive novelty purchase which actually surprised me with the quality of the image files it delivers. But I'd probably give it to someone who asked me nicely enough...it just doesn't get used.

-PW

+1 ... Same here ... but I've given my 40mm to my 9 yr old daughter for her 1100D within a couple of days of purchasing it. I've relegated her 18-55 kit lens to the shelf with the hope that she'll learn better composition with the prime.

BTW, I have put on the Hoya UV filter on the lens.

[mb66energy]

I always use filters on my lenses but do not use front lens caps.

(1) I don't have to be supercareful if dust, dirt, water hits the front of the lens which happens always.
(2) A planar optical element is easily cleaned - here with cotton clothing or sth. other which is available.
(3) If the front gets a hit by a hard object there is a chance that the filter is smashed but the front element of the lens survices.
(4) In winter or during rain I like to put the camera under my coat. I had one incident when a plastic part of the coat has destroyed the consistency of the multi coating of a filter.

My experience with the 10-22: See point (4) above. The filter is now on my 5.6/400 where it doesn't matter but on the 10-22 the damaged coating was visible in contralight so I replaced the filter and now I use front lens caps on that lens. Replacing the filter was ~50€, a replacement of the front element of the 10-22 would have been sth. around 300 € (estimated) - it is an aspherical lens.

Filters used: B&W MRC 010

[Hillsilly]

I typically don't use UV filters, but often use IR filters, ND filters, B&W filters and polarizers.  But then, I'm not a pro photographer who is constantly using their camera gear.  I can be a bit more relaxed and careful.  Using a filter affects the image quality.  Sometimes in a good way.  Often in a bad way. If you know what you are trying to achieve (eg a particular look or protection) and understand any trade-offs, then the choice of whether to use a filter is pretty easy.  I just wish the lens was designed with more thought for use with bigger filters.  52mm filters just don't look right.

[Vossie]

Just got my shorty forty last week and do not intend to use a filter on it. I do use HQ B+W filters on most of my lenses, but I got this one for its very low price and size; adding a filter will compromise both features.