To UV or not to UV...

THis subject Very informative videos on the subject of UV filters and both their effect on image quality and value as protection for your lens.

Somewhat surprising results.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2016/06/11/photo-mythbusting-do-uv-filters-truly-reduce-image-quality

Dave

LensRentals busted the myth:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters/

TL;DR: there are three photos side-by-side of a bumper sticker that says crye-leike.com. One was shot with no filter, one was shot with five good filters, one was shot with five bad filters. There's an obvious progression of "general muck" in the shots as you go from no to good to bad.

I can't seem to find it quickly, but they also busted the myth that a UV element protects your lens from damage (granted, they have a very large sample set). They found that the cost to repair dropped lenses for a year was notably less than the cost to put a UV filter on all of their lenses at the time. At least a small percentage of the dropped lenses going in for repair had a filter on at the time, so at least IMHO you're better off removing the filter and just paying for a repair if a lens gets dropped. Our 16-35/2.8 II needed a repair and it was $225...not cheap, but not bad either considering how much of the lens got replaced during the repair job.

Instead of a UV filter. I get Nikon's NC (neutral color) filters.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/121297-REG/Nikon_2481_72mm_Clear_NC_Glass.html

• More affordable than UV filters
  
• won't introduce color changes
  
• offers additional protection to the lens coatings.
  

Sigma has an interesting UV filter. Sigma's WR filters are great when shooting in bad weather... however I found the images are not as sharp.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1208868-REG/sigma_aff9e0_72mm_clear_glass_ceramic.html

I'm curious to hear what others use....

I've always used a top quality skylight rather than a UV, it won't help if you drop it, but will save some scratches.

I'll phrase my opposition a different way for the sake of discussion:

Camera manufacturers go to great lengths to figure out EXACTLY how to shape every lens element for the best compromises of optical performance and manufacturing costs. Those compromises include focus, sharpness, flare prevention, distortions and aberrations, etc. They also go to great lengths to figure out the best coatings possible for the same compromises as the lens elements.

Why would you choose to put a piece of flat glass and generic coatings in front of your lens? If you drop your lens, send it in for repair and admit that you dropped it. They'll disassemble the lens in a proper manner, assess the inner workings for proper alignment and such, reassemble, and recalibrate. If it's deemed to be unrepairable, they'll most likely offer you a good deal on a refurbished lens or similar. Your UV or NC filter isn't going to protect the inner workings, so you end up spending money to buy the filter AND you end up spending the money for a repair job.

Both of the lenses we've dropped needed a visit to the repair station. One might have smashed a UV filter, but would have needed a repair anyway. The other wouldn't have smashed a filter whatsoever.