UV Filter?
 

I want to buy some kind of neutral filters to protect my lenses and just leave them there screwed on..

Are there any negative aspects of having a UV filter left on there or is it better to look for something completely neutral?

Thanks!

The only thing a UV filter does is protect your lens. Keep it on all the time. You can get them at B&H well priced. Just search for your lens diameter. Some cheap ones will scratch easier, though. Better that than your lens!

ok thanks.. (they do have some other purpose aswell though right?!)

(never mind.. wiki:

UV filters are individual compounds or mixtures to prevent ultraviolet (UV) light from coming through. UV filters are used in sunscreens to protect skin or in photography to reduce haziness or fogginess created by ultraviolet light.
A UV filter in photography is transparent to visible light, and so can be left on the lens for nearly all shots. UV filters are among the least expensive filters, so many people use them as protection for their lenses, although this may not be effective.[1] For this purpose they are preferred over other kinds of filters which are more intrusive, such as neutral density filters.
The UV filter absorbs ultraviolet rays without changing the exposure. With most images, people will not see a difference when a UV filter is used. However, UV filters (in particular filters lacking coating) may introduce flaring and have negative impact on contrast and sharpness, especially when a strong light source is present.)

i guess sharpness isnt an issue in video..

so..

then the choice whether to buy a 10 euro Hama standard 77mm or a 40 euro Hama 709 series tech line multi coated 77mm.. or one of the several options in between..

what do you guys use?

Yes. Even with the most expensive and highest quality filters, you'll get an increase in flare, glare, ghosting, and loss of contrast. If you shoot scenes that have low dynamic range (no bright lights, etc.), then you might not see any difference. If you buy more inexpensive filters, then the loss of image quality will be even worse.

Many people feel that the loss of image quality is worth it to protect the lens. Personally, I do not. Over the course of a year, Lensrentals.com rented out 700 lenses for a cumulative 16,000 weeks of heavy use. It resulted in a grand total of just 6 damaged front elements. That's an average of 51 years of rental usage per damaged front element. The total cost to replace all 6 front elements was $2,255. The cost of 700 UV filters at wholesale: about $28,000 (@ $40 per filter). And even for those six, it's very unlikely that a filter would have prevented the damage.

Daniel, you don't use a UV filter at all?

That's correct. I never use a protective filter unless I'm filming unfriendly stuff like spraying oil (cooking), etc.

Sheesh, okay then, filters coming off! I've always used them reflexively, sheep like. But you just convinced me it's an idiotic thing to do.

Daniel, your fluency with numbers and data blows me away. I suppose you just had this info on the top of your head?

Nah, just a note-taking system. It has a category for filters ("protective filters", "advantages of linear polarizers over circular", "using magenta to increase dynamic range", etc.)

some more info here Filters by Thom Hogan

maybe i'll skip the UV thing too!