The other day I was reading a discussion on another bird forum about UV filters:
http://www.feathersandphotos.com.au/forum/showthread.php?11410-To-filter-or-not-to-filter
Unfortunately, after they got through 4 pages of discussion, there wasn't much of a conclusion amongst the members. So I was curious about what everyone here thought about UV filters, and if you use them?
I haven't done any tests comparing images with and without a filter, so I don't know if much degradation of the image quality would occur. The were certainly mixed opinions on that thread.
I wouldn't be using them mate. They impair the contrast and sharpness of your images and the bad ones create weird linear streaking to the images.
With a bit of common sense and care it is quite easy to keep your front element in good nick.
Cheers, Owen.
Never used one, never will. Always have a hood on though.
Shorty......Canon gear
Canberra
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawshorty/
Ok thanks. I'll have to reconsider the filter I have on my camera then.
This is what I wrote (first response, closed account) and still stand by it.
Not me. IMHO filters for wildlife are plain useless. Since the best conditions are early or late in the day, then not a lot can be gained and you risk jeopardizing image quality by adding yet another glass element. Even a UV or clear filter. For protecting a lens' front element, best to use a lens hood. Again, all this is my opinion and I am sure some folks like using filters. For pelagics, you could try, but you lose shutter speed (SS) and you want the fastest possible SS when on a rocking boat, trying to steady yourself for a shot.
One thing you get on the internet is dozens of people who have digital cameras and a lens or two and consider themselves credible photographers.
Incidentally, I went on my first ever pelagic boat trip yesterday off Wollongong and never had anything on the lens than hoods. A little salt spray is all I got on the glass.