Sigma 105mm

[Boddie]

I have a UV filter on the front of my macro lens really just to protect the lens from dust. Good idea, bad idea?

[glsammy]

I wouldn't go out without then Andrew. I've got them permanently on both my lenses. I did my own tests with and without, and I couldn't see any difference, so keep it on! Much better to damage a filter that cost a few quid instead of that expensive lens.

[Boddie]

Thanks Graham

Do you think I should get one for my 12-24 aswell?

[eeyore]

I agree with graham , not so much to keep dust off but to protect the front ellement from damage. I once took a cricket ball smack on the end of the little bigma (it was a bouncing four shot and I was trying to get it in the frame) smashed the filter and lens hood but their sacrifice saved the front element.

Another time, at santago leopard sanctuary an african leopard smacked the end of the lens with its foot (this was my canon 70-300mm) as i tried for shots of it pouncing, again the filter was lunched but the front element was undamaged - I had a lovely blackeye though

The only time you might want to take it off is iff you are putting more than one other filter on the front, stacking more than 2 can lead to vignetting and loss of image quality.

edit: yes definitely put one on all your lenses.

[Boddie]

Actually at the weekend I forgot to lock one of the arms on my tripod head and the camera rotated forward with the UV lens hitting the arm of the tripod. It dented the UV lens slightly. I guess it did not damage the lens

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Boddie

Actually at the weekend I forgot to lock one of the arms on my tripod head and the camera rotated forward with the UV lens hitting the arm of the tripod. It dented the UV lens slightly. I guess it did not damage the lens

Has it distorted the image? I did exactly the same as you when I had my first mono-pod. I'm now ultra careful about the tension of the screw before I mount the lens.
Oh, YES get one for every lens you use or value! You don't have to spend a fortune. Mine are relatively cheap, that's why I bothered to test them just to make sure I wasn't loosing image quality.

[Boddie]

No I am pretty sure the lens is fine. I took a nice crisp shot of a talivan with it just to make sure

[Oy]

Digital CCDs already have a UV filter in front of them.

Personally - for lens protection - I just use a lens hood. I feel that the UV or Skylight filter to protect the lens deal is a clever invention designed to sell you stuff you don't need.

I've been taking photos without them for 30 years and have yet to damage a front element.

[carlj]

I can recall dropping my Zenit EM from about 4 feet onto the pavement. The skylight filter was dented, the lens and camera fine. The pavement never recovered....

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Oy

Digital CCDs already have a UV filter in front of them.

Personally - for lens protection - I just use a lens hood. I feel that the UV or Skylight filter to protect the lens deal is a clever invention designed to sell you stuff you don't need.

I've been taking photos without them for 30 years and have yet to damage a front element.

its your decision mate but I reckon that your wrong, The example i gave above are only two of about ten times my filters have save my lens from serious harm - another example isthe time I was hitin the head by a flying puffin - dont ask. this took me by suprised and caused nme to fall forward onto the rocky ground trapping the camera between my chest and a large rock. The filter on the front was abraded to only just being translucent but the £500 or so of lens was undamaged.