I’m revisiting one of the oldest debates in photography lately: do I keep a UV or clear filter on my lenses to protect them from front element damage?
The premise is simple – use a piece of glass that’s expendable to protect a much larger investment from flying ballast, sand, rain, etc. The trade off is that head-on telephoto shots, like this view of Canadian National in Richfield, Wis., this past weekend, have a higher likelihood of producing funny image artifacts with the headlight on a low-quality filter.
Of course, the use of lens filters to alter the image has largely gone away due to the rise of digital photography. Photographers are no longer carrying around a collection of colored filters for black-and-white work, neutral density gradients for light diffusion, or even circular polarizers to cut glare.
I tell myself that should I ever purchase a lens that’s $1,000 or more, then, yes, a $100 filter is probably a good investment. But none of my lenses are that pricey, especially considering that I bought most of my equipment used or refurbished. And, since I don’t want to risk reduced image quality with a low-quality filter, does it still make sense to pay $50 to $100 for a filter on a lens that may only cost $300 to replace?
In more than 15 years of SLR photography, I have yet to damage the front element of any of my lenses, which shows that front element impacts are exceedingly rare, or I have already beaten the odds for too long.
Do you use filters to protect your front lens element when shooting? Have you ever damaged the front element where a filter would have saved it, and how? Tell us in the comments section below.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.