UV lens filter

[abm234]

What do you guys think of a $10-20 UV filter for my new DSLR lens? Is it a good idea?

[Jengerbread88]

I bought a filter (I think) that screws onto my DSLR lens. I went back and forth, but the lady who was selling it said that she recommended it because I could always remove it if it didn't work with my shot, it didn't mess with the image too much, and it provided affordable scratch-proofing for the lens. In her words "Would you rather place a $15 filter, or an entire lens?" For me, it made more sense to buy the filter and remove it when needed.

[luckyme]

UV filters are a case of you get what you pay for -- cheaper ones can dull images. Check out this article to see the difference:
http://petapixel.com/2012/07/25/this...for-your-lens/

I have a UV filter on each of my lenses to protect them from scratches/breaks - but they're about $100 each.

[abm234]

Very interesting ladies! I thought a $20 filter was a no-brainer if it protected my lens but it also seemed hard to believe it wouldn't impact image quality. I guess it does. Well, the one I bought doesn't fit so it will be returned. The question is whether to invest in the more expensive filter or just take my chances? Hmmm.

[sprauncey1]

Originally Posted by abm234

Very interesting ladies! I thought a $20 filter was a no-brainer if it protected my lens but it also seemed hard to believe it wouldn't impact image quality. I guess it does. Well, the one I bought doesn't fit so it will be returned. The question is whether to invest in the more expensive filter or just take my chances? Hmmm.

In my last 10+ years of owning a dSLR I have replaced a filter but not one single lens. I've had a friend who also has had a lens dropped (not far but still) and the filter broke but not the lens. Many people go naked when they shoot (no filter!) but these people also swear they are very careful or use their lens hoods religiously. Me I'm pretty clumsy and I have a lot of money invested now. So I pay for the expensive filters. Plus the UV one does reduce haze, which I NEED here in dusty land. Also be aware that if its a cheaper filter that you may get ghosting or flare due to the light bouncing around between the filter and the lens. More expensive filters are made to reduce this effect.

So my final answer is how lucky do you feel, and would it be terrible if you had to replace a lens, or not a big deal?

[taracotta7]

Originally Posted by Jengerbread88

I bought a filter (I think) that screws onto my DSLR lens. I went back and forth, but the lady who was selling it said that she recommended it because I could always remove it if it didn't work with my shot, it didn't mess with the image too much, and it provided affordable scratch-proofing for the lens. In her words "Would you rather place a $15 filter, or an entire lens?" For me, it made more sense to buy the filter and remove it when needed.

Exactly this. I buy them as protection for my lens.

[kristalund]

yes! always have a filter on your lenses....mine always run $20-$40.

[mlewis]

I buy them on the cheaper side and have replaced them several times when my camera has dropped (while in the case) but have never had a broken lens.

[abm234]

I appreciate everybody's input on this!