Lens protection

[sposh]

I'm still undecided on UV filters to protect the front element of my lenses. There seems to be 2 camps, for and against using protective filters.

On the plus side you have size & convenience (I find hoods both bulky: on the lens it makes you stand out like a sore thumb, in the bag it's a squeeze, in the pouch it doesn't fit - and finicky: annoying to screw on & off every time you take the camera out of the bag), protects against abrasions, interferes a lot less with a polariser than a hood, and as an extra bonus cuts through haze a bit.

However on the negative side is cost, extra glass to cause nasty refractions or worse (avoidable by making the cost problem worse ;-), vignetting, and as an extra bonus hoods protect against flare (even if it is minimal) - though of course there's nothing stopping you from having filter + hood.

I used to have a Hoya on my 70-300 and you really did notice the difference (in a bad way, especially loss of resolution). A guy from a shop (not where I bought it) said that was really strange and the filter might be faulty. I now have a B+W on my 24-105, I should do some pixel peeping on it someday I guess.

In the end I don't know if it is really an issue, I can't see Frank Cappa or Ansel Adams angsting over these kind of things (perhaps we angst over gear because we aren't them ;-). The arguments I've seen tend to border on the fanatical (as, I'm sorry to say, what I sometimes read about Nikon on these forums - a camera is just a tool, get over it ;-).

Thoughts on the matter...?

[Raddy]

Personally I do use B+W UV filters on all my lenses. It kinda makes me feel better knowing my expensive glass is protected. Of course you can use your hoods to add some protection to your lenses. But just like you, I sometimes prefer less bulky equipment.
When I hear people saying UV filters have an impact on the image quality it just gives me a smille. I never noticed a significant and/or visible reduction in image quality, at least not when using good UV filters like B+W.
But I gotta admit, I never really did such thing as pixel peeping. In case you would have to do so in order to find some noticable difference in image quality, you should ask yourself if there isn't other things to worry about. My 5 cents.

[neuroanatomist]

I am firmly in the use a filter camp.  I have B+W MRC UV filters on all my lenses.  I also always use a lens hood, for additional protection and especially for the increase in contrast and saturation you get with the hood.  One of the big advantages, which is not so relevant on the newest lenses that have fluorine coatings, is that the MRC filter is much easier to clean than the coating on most front elements.  It's also worth noting that on some lenses, a filter is required to complete the weather sealing. The front element is generally pretty resistant to scratches, and with the hood it's rare that things actually contact the front element or filter. For me, one exception to that is the MP-E 65mm, which has such a close working distance that I seem to always be shoving the front of the lens into branches. Yes, it means an additional cost.  I have 12 lenses, if you add up the cost of all those filters it would pay for another lens. Still, I personally think the extra peace of mind is worth it.

[wickidwombat]

all hoya are not created equal there are the cheap ones and there are the good ones the pro 1D i have both the hoya pro1d and the b+w there is no noticable difference in them. my polarisers are all the hoya ones.
there are many occassions where i have been extremely glad i had filters on my lens. I always have them on