UV protection for 2.8 Zoom Lenses? Yes or No?

[pixbyalan]

When I bought my Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, I also bought $100+ Hoya Pro UV filters to protect the lenses. But I've been reading and hearing from other photographers that you should never use a UV filter on a nice lens and rely on the hood for protection. Is this the case? Should I remove and sell my UV filters? Or, should I protect the front of my lenses?

When I pay $2500 for a lens, I don't want to scratch it up, but I also don't want to degrade the quality. Any help would be appreciated!

[Dave C.]

I leave a B+W 010 UV filter on my Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR at all times! I have not seen any image degradation for it at all. It may not be NEEDED, but i feel much safer having it on there and i have no problem replacing a scratched 80.00 filter over a $1500+ lens. to me it's a no brainer, but i do know there are some who say no uv filter is ever needed and only use the hood as protection.

[scootermcq]

I look at it this way.... my (eye)glasses have all sorts of micro scratches from cleaning them. They too have an anti-scratch coating. If you are out in a light sprinkle of water, the front element will have to be wiped off..... eventually, no matter how good a micro fiber you use you are gonna have some adverse affect. I really don't think when some guy shoots at me with a 44 magnum for taking his picture it is gonna protect the lens.... I just want to keep it pristine and wipe down a hundred dollar uv filter.

Put you camera on a tripod, get in some consistant light, a take a picture with and without the filter. If you can tell the difference, then take it off or get a better filter. If you can't tell the difference, then leave it on, cause it aint hurting anything and it might just help the front element

[inkista]

This is a matter of personal taste/paranoia.

On the one hand you have the photographers who argue that if you paid $2500 for a lens to get the best clarity and sharpness you can, throwing additional $80 glass in front of it will waste that money by compromising the image. Also, it probably costs less to replace the front element of a lens than it does to continually buy new filters, and that front element is probably there as protection anyway, not as an optical element.

On the other hand, you have people saying that with a good (multi-coated, higher-cost) UV filter, the image quality hit is minimal or imperceptible, and you're protecting your front element and/or its coatings, and that you can treat your gear more casually (i.e., wipe off your lens with a shirt tail). With Canon L lenses, in fact, many of the "weather-sealed" lenses are not truly weather-sealed unless there's a filter on the front of the front of the lens. And replacing the front element means being without your lens.

You pays your money and you takes your choices.

I live in San Diego. I do nature photography on dusty canyon trails and at the beach. I really prefer having UV filters on the front of all my lenses, and have trashed coatings on old ones to prove it.

[kirbinster]

Skip the filter, I do.

[ravncat]

after having seen a lens drop onto the front element with a hood - and the hood get bent but the lens be totally fine, and one with a filter - the filter busted and the filter glass did damage to the front element.

I'm for lens hoods and caps for protection - I'll consider a uv filter for protection in a sandstorm or the ocean's saltspray on a beach... Otherwise I think it gets in the way of image quality... at the very least it increases ghosting and flaring.