Quote Originally Posted by gabby View Post
.... Are you all saying that the use of a UV filter is not advisable with dSLRs? ( I used to always keep one on my ME Super unless I wanted another specialized one)
Yes.

It's generally not advisable to use a filter unless it's for an actual effect that you're after.
In film days they used to help cut UV transmission through to the film as film was more susceptible to UV contamination.
Skylight filters do have an actual effect, so if your preference is to capture the effect of a slightly more pink less contrasty image without the use of software then by all means use it.

As protection, these kinds of filters don't really help protect your lens from impacts.
They can help protect your lens from getting dirty by seaspray, dusty environments, etc but you still have to clean the filter if you don't want IQ loss.

So there could be an argument put forward that a UV or skylight filter can help to protect the lens, but the point is moot. You can easily clean the lens as you can a filter.

The problem arises when your filter does start to get dirty in a dusty or ocean environment, where unless you keep it spotlessly clean it can produce more artifacts than an equivalently dirty lens. The distance between the front of the lens and the filter is the issue, and the dirty filter is going to produce more degradation in the image due to the distance and extra surface along the optical path.

Those folks that are too scared to clean their lenses should really take up another hobby. Lenses are hardy creatures and don't easily damage as some folks will lead you to believe.

I find it's usually easier to clean a lens than a filter when the front most element gets dirty whilst shooting.

of course there are those that totally disagree with these sentiments, and swear by the use of protective filters.
But! I've seen more damage done to a lens by having a filter on the lens, than any proof(yet) that having a filter on will safeguard your lens from damage.