UV Filters

[vandv61]

Is it worth the higher price for a UV filter, do they make that much of a difference with a higher quality L lens? What is a fair price to pay on a Quality UV filter?  I see them for as high as $300 plus.

[cicopo]

Many people including me don't use them. Many feel they lower image quality & when you consider the cost to outfit every lens you own with a high quality filter vs what it MIGHT cost to replace a damaged front element there's some logic to the wait & see if it ever happens aspect of things. Many just rely on the lens hood to be the protector if dropped.

[7D5D]

Definitely two schools of thought on using filters.  It seems to be about 50-50, It's really a personal preference.   I am one that uses UV filters on all my lens for protection but mostly cleanabiltiy. A good quality coating on the filter makes it very easy to clean.   All of my lens have B&W MRC UV filters.   The 77mm is about $85, smaller a little less, and the 82mm jumps over $100.  

As cicopo mentioned, your lens hood might provide adequate protection and you can avoid adding a filter.  I always use a hood anyway just for flare issues.  Do keep in mind that some lens do require a filter to complete the sealing such as the EF 16-35 II.   Check your lens manual.  Also, If I'm using a CPL (circular polarizing filter), I remove my UV.  I don't stack filters.

Whatever you do, don't skimp and put a crappy filter on a HQ lens.

Here's some discussion on the pros and cons of using UV filters

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3217.msg67404#msg67404

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7027.0

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/37394169

[RLPhoto]

I use B&W UV MRC filters on all my lenses. Good protection and No need to worry about wiping my lens off with my shirt or pants in a tight spot.

[JoeDavid]

You mentioned Canon L lenses.  If you really read the little manual that comes with a lens, you'll notice that Canon indicates that you need to add a filter to complete the weather sealing on some of the L lenses.  If they make one in the filter size I need I usually pick up a Nikon clear glass filter (I don't believe Canon makes clear which I guess is a non-filter filter).  The UV filter used to be referred to as a UV-Haze filter because it can reduce haze in some landscape shots.  The negative effect is that it can also reduce the blueness of a blue sky a little...

As for affecting the image quality, not really unless you start stacking them or use low quality filters that aren't multi-coated to keep flare under control (remember you've added two glass surfaces to the front of the lens).  Also, stay away from cheap ND and polarizing filters...

[ebiggs1]

I am in the, yes I use a high quality filter on every lens I own. I use Canon brand filters on all my Canon lens and I have a Sigma brand filter on my Siggy.

I don't know what a person would have to do to tell if an "L" lens had a filter on to or not. Under normal average conditions I believe it to be impossible. If there is a difference I can't see it.

Is anybody going to try and tell me an $85 dollar filter on a $2000+ "L", or even a $1000, lens is a bad investment because of what might or might not happen? I consider the filter cheap insurance.

[Sami]

I've used them only as front element protectors. And only once I needed it. And that was my own stupidity. Little did I know there were bulls on the same field as cows. Nicked it in barb wire when I exited the field in rather hasty fashion.

I've since decided to save in UV-filter costs by not going near bulls.