On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:08:15 -0400, "Meryl Arbing" wrote:

>If you are in a situation like a beach with blowing sand or salt spray then
>definitiely us a filter to protect your lens from the gunk flying around in
>the air. Unfortunately some people take this advise to mean..use the filter
>ALL the time and the rationale is, as you have stated, "filters are cheap to
>replace, lenses are not" but there is a false sense of security in using s
>filter as "protection". I was carrying an expensive (aren't they all??)
>digital camera. I had the camera on a strap and I slung my arm through the
>strap so that the camera was hanging under my arm. I was walking and just
>didn't see the bar that came about chest height as I rounded a corner. The
>end of the bar just caught the camera square on the "protective" filter and
>shattered it. Wow!! I'm sure glad I had that "protective" filter! NOT!!!
>Because the shards of broken glass from the filter broke inwards and
>completely scratched up the front element of the lens on a $1000 digital
>rendering it complete junk!!
>
>If, instead of a $5 glass filter, I had used a $0.25 plastic lens cap or
>used a lens hood nothing would have happened.
>
>There are places when a filter is the best protection you can have and still
>shoot...but nothing is the only choice

I agree - though for 99+% (roughly...;-) of photographs,
a good UV filter will have no ill effect - and it can
save the lens (more common than the reverse, I suspect...).
I was shooting a building once when someone's head appeared
over a hedge. For reasons unknown, the person objected
rather a lot to having been caught on film and grabbed
for the camera. His grip ruined the filter (as I wrested
it back), but not the lens...