I was convinced early on that using A UV filter was a good idea. Primarily, the argument had to do with protection of the front elements of my lenses. My opinion on this subject has changed, however.
In part that has come about for one of the reasons +Scott Bourne points out in his latest post over at Photo Focus. (See the link below) You're going to put a $35 filter on a $1000 lens–REALLY!? In addition, I have found in practice that dust gets trapped between the filter and the front element on my lenses. A third reason for my change of heart is that I generally don't remove the UV filter when I want to add a circular-polarizing or other filter. That means filter stacking and can result in increased vignetting and greatly adds to the chance that lens flare of one type or another will adversely effect photo quality.
So my position on UV filters? Just don't do it. Surf on over to Photo Focus and see what Scott thinks.
http://photofocus.com/2011/10/31/the-problem-with-using-filters-on-your-camera-lenses/
Embedded Link
The Problem With Using Filters On Your Camera Lenses
Google+: View post on Google+
lol
A lot of other photographers shake their heads at me as I do not have UV filters on most of my lens. I do on the 80-400 because I will never add a filter on top of it and it came with the lens when I got it. Now, that's lazy!
Nice! You'll have a blast with that.
Thanks +Larry Eiss … Hopefully in the next month or 2 I'll be in a position to get the D7000 c/w 18-105.
That was such awful luck with the D50s, man. I hope you can upgrade to the D7000 as you mentioned you might. Used bodies can be a great idea too, so long as they are in decent shape and don't have too many shutter actuations.
Looks like I'll have to take my UV filters of my three (3) Nikkor lenses (18-55; 55-200; 70-300) when I get a camera to replace my two (2) dead Nikon D50 bodies.