Canon Community Canon Community

Posts: 9,362
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: UV filters?

"...only costs about $200-$300 to replace."


The front element on my ef 85mm f1.4L was $385.


"Filters don't protect "expensive lenses"."


And you are right it didn't !  Smiley Sad

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, along with, a lot of other stuff.
Honored Contributor
Posts: 6,427
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: UV filters?

[ Edited ]

MikeSowsun wrote:

Filters don't protect "expensive lenses". They only protect the front element which probably only costs about $200-$300 to replace. 

I would beg to differ.  Some lenses need a protective front filter to complete the weather sealing.

Some people like to use protective filters.  Some people do not like to use protective filters.  Personally, I like having a protective filter, because as already been noted, it is easier and safer to clean a $80 filter than a front element of a $2000 lens.


"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Posts: 9,362
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: UV filters?

"... it is easier and safer to clean..."


Bingo! Smiley Happy

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, along with, a lot of other stuff.
Super Contributor
Posts: 247
Registered: ‎01-31-2017

Re: UV filters?

[ Edited ]

inkjunkie wrote:

I understand the importance of me the big one is the protection of scratches...

I do use a UV filter too, but not to filter out UV light. That isn't necessary with modern lenses. I use it for front-element lens protection. I am often in environments that can wreak havoc on a lens -- areas of the California desert, in forests, along tide pools and the ocean.


In desert shooting,I don't always shoot on my feet. If i encounter a desert tortoise, scorpion, lizard, snake or some other reptile, I like to get on my belly and shoot them "eye to eye," which produces a more pleasing perspective (in my opinion) than shooting them from above. So it is not unusual for the lens to be a an inch or two off the desert floor, nor is it unsual to find a few grains of sand, DG, dirt, dust, etc. on the filter after shooting. This is why I also carry a small retractable brush, blower and lens tissues with me in my pack.  I should probably use a hood to go along with the filter, but the UV filter is better than nothing.


I also use a circular polarizing filter when I'm around water or shooting a landscape with a lot of sky, and its effects are quite noticeable when rotated. I don't understand arguments against filters in these environments, but have become convinced that some people who make those arguments don't shoot in the kinds of environments I do. But to each his own, as they say.

Valued Contributor
Posts: 416
Registered: ‎11-19-2017

Re: UV filters?

I'm the same.  UV filters for element protection.  Lens puffer is invaluable.  Keep one in my pocket at all times now. 

Bay Area - CA
~6D2 (f/w 1.0.3) ~16-35mm f2.8L II, 50 f1.8 STM, 85 prime USM, 70-200 f2.8L IS II ~70-300 USM II ~Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Art (f/w 2.01)
~Sigma 150-600 C + TC1401 1.4x (f/w 1.03) ~Speedlite 430 EX II ~DxO PhotoLab Elite ~Windows10 Pro nVidia GPU 1803
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement