Question about UV and protective filters

[jamesoliverstone]

My cynical mind is playing tricks on me

I have bought a nikkor 24 -70 2.8 and pre-ordered the 70-200 vrII 2.8 for my D700.

Now, I used to have protective filters on my cheap lenses I had with the canon, but the reason I finally bought pro lenses is for the IQ and low light performance.

Now, my cinical head says, why would I chuck a £20 bit of glass on thousands of quids worth of professional optics... surely that is counter productive for IQ?

Am I correct in my assumption?

 

[Carl V]

If you have expensive, quality lenses, I certainly wouldn't put a cheap filter in front of them. The best ones are expensive, but are made to a high standard. However, other photographers would use a lens hood in place of a filter.

 

[jamesoliverstone]

Glad its not just me then, as I would rather use my lens hood instead

 

[CT]

I nevwr use protective filters for the reasons stated - even the top quality ones will still put a large piece of flat glass right on the front of your lens where it's likely to catch flare when shooting towards the light. The only time I'd use a protective filter is in a particularly hostile environement e.g. wet or dusty.

I do however always use a lens hood which will actually benefit your images and provide protection from knocks for the front element.

 

[Carl V]

Glad its not just me then, as I would rather use my lens hood instead

Well at least with hoods it helps to minimize lens flare, but it depends on your photography, I would say. I still work with black & white film, so I tend to leave a yellow filter on most of the time while at the same time protecting the lens, and then change to an orange or red filter if I want a stronger effect.

If I were shooting with colour, I wouldn't bother with any apart from a polarizer now and again.