Dave,

Some people argue that a UV filter protects the lens, but it also increases the chance for vignetting and lens flare. I would only use a UV filter when there is a chance of water splashes or sand being blown around hard. A UV filter will not improve an image, either for film or digital.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

I agree with Frans on the UV filters. At high altitudes, one may need a UV, but as a means of protection,????????????
What is it with this "Digital Filter" business anyway?
Why would a digital camera require a different kind of composition? Is this just more "sales talk"?

This the third time the same question has been asked in as many days. Why use a filter at all unless it does something different than not using it can do. The only time I would even consider using a filter is to protect the front of the lens at the beach or in the rain. Use a lens hood.

I agree. Unless there's a specific environmental need for it, leave it off.

Probably, there are so many posts on this question has to do with the numnber of Christmas gift cameras that came with UV filters attached....

I use a skylight filter to protect my lenses, is this a form of uv filter? And if not does this affect my pictures in any way?

i used to use UV filters because i thought that i needed to "protect" my lens....

but experience showed me that

1. they dont offer much protection...many lenses have recessed front elements and it would be very hard to scratch one of those. They would have to be struck directly from the front. OR when bouncing around in the bag ( lens cap!)The one time i did have a situation where something did strike the filter....it broke the filter and still scratched the lens element ruining the lens anyway...so much for my $77 UV protective filter...one for EVERY lens. I could have bought so much film instead of wasting it on filters...but i digress

2. they always get dirty..inside and out so you are constantly cleaning the filters...yet for some reason the lens elements never seem to attract as much dust

3. you bring up the multicoated aspect...but remember that your lens not only likely has recessed elements but also has a matte black textured interior rim to also avoid flaring....adding a flat piece of glass to the front of the lens and leaving it their all the time will certainly result in an increased liklihood of flaring...

4. the quality of most filters is low and they scratch very easily...usually more easily than the lens they protect

5. they will absolutely vignette some wide angle lenses as another poster pointed out

i use filtes when i need them...but a UV never did anyhing but cause me grief. 5 years later and no scratched lenses.......beleive me, a lens cap will do just as good a job of PROTECTING The lens... when was the last time the front glass of your lens was struck while you were actively using it? They get damaged bouncing around in the bag, not while they are attached to your face.

and the term Digital Protective UV filter has marketting hype written all over it..

1. Digital implies that its different for digital than with film.. thats a lie. Sort of like the way lens makers say "optimized for digital" when all that means is that it wont work on your film camera because it was desinged with a smaller sensor size in mind....but they make it sound like its an improvmement..

2. protective...its not protecting anything that your lens cap wont protect against.....and the term protective almost flat out tells you that the filter does nothing else...

3. UV...i wont deny that...but to be honest, I havent pulled out a UV filter in ages..to actually filter out UV

if you are going to get one anyway..i would recommend a multicoated filter... but make sure that you arent doing something dumb like adding a $80 B&H filter to a $200 lens.. Your money would have been better spent on a $300 lens.