So you know what sort of camera he's using, what sort of photography he
does, what sort of effects he's looking for and his budget?

"\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" <samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:

    In that case you are right, some of the best filter may cost 2-3+ times
more than some camera itself <bg>.  Or some lens-hood costs 1/3 to 1/2 of an
expensive lens too.  I don't remember the exact cost but somewhere in either
$600 or $800+ (I posted the price here once some months ago)

I have never been a fan of leaving a UV or skylight filter on all the
time. The old B&W colored filters would serve no useful purpose with
digital. The only filter that I can see of value would be the
occasional use of a polarizer. I just haven't gotten around to buying
one yet. And I hate the graduated things for making phony sunsets.

    You can use if you wish, and you can buy the most expensive filter to
protect the cheapest lens if you feel like.  So it's up to you.

    *But* if you are some kind of wifelife photographer who spend lot of time
in the wood, lake, or deal with lot of mud then filter may be a good choice.
Not to protect your lens but easier to clean off the mud.

Standard film-type filters only affect analog light and have no value on a
digital camera, which only 'sees' the digital portion of the light spectrum.
For your digital camera, you must use special digital filters to have any
effect on the pictures. Check your local camera store, but be aware that
many stores are having difficulty selling their old analog filters, and
offer the salespeople special bonuses for pawning off the analog filters.
They may tell you that there is no such thing as a digital filter, but
that's only so they can move the analog ones. Insist on the digital filter
version.

I routinely keep a UV or Skylight filter on all of my lenses and have for
the last 40+ years.   I don't get the most expensive filters.   When the
photos count most, I remove the filters.    I like what a polarizing filter
does for reflections from water and other surfaces.

The best, most expert, photographers don't use filters.   This tells you in
which category I belong.

Paying attention and having a clue go a long ways. In 41 years of doing
photography, I've never scratched a lens surface.

Again, no substitute for having a clue.

    Accident can happen to anyone anything at anytime, but scratching glass is
pretty rare, so breaking the glass is even rarer (it does happen but kinda
rare). And I think HEARING sound more reasonal than seeing (especially
seeing more than once).  Cuz

- The most accident is dropping either lens only or with camera, and the
chance for the GLASS to hit small sharp object head-on to break is very
rare.  So even with internet we can hear story from millions of people
around the world, we may hear some and still pretty rare.

- Most if not all newer lens have HOOD (few doesn't come with hood and buyer
will have to pay extra) which not only protect the glass from bright light,
it also act as glass protection.

    I have never heard this story, but if you are going this route then I
think it may give some reason (?).

    I haven't tried to remove glare effect of polarizer to know for sure, but
I sure can even remove the HEAD of some BODY and lot more like fixing glare
not just on eye-glass but even the eye of some portrait.