Speaking of myths, just what do UV filters do?

Originally, UV filters, and their cousins, haze filters, were placed in front of the lens to mollify the effects of UV light on panchromatic and color film, given its proximity to blue on the light spectrum. This is not an issue in digital photography.

Some (here) say a UV filter will prevent UV degradation of the lens or its coatings. Interesting but I have never heard this claim and could not find any knowledgeable photographer making it via a web search.

Some say a UV filter can protect a lens from breaking if dropped. Most photographers/lens manufacturers agree that today’s lenses are far more sturdy than a UV filter, which very well may break if the lens is dropped.

Some say a UV filter may cause flare or ghosting (especially in high contrasting scenes) in the final image. Most photographers report that such an occurrence, if it happens, is hardly noticeable.

For all intent and purposes in digital photography, UV filters serve one purpose: prevent scratches and foreign matter from coming into contact with the front element of the lens. The point being that dust, sand, saliva, sweat, rain, snow, salt spray, et al., are easier to clean from a filter than a lens, while saving the lens from relentless, potentially abrasive cleaning regimes.

I obtained this filter to test for chromatic aberrations, flare, and ghosting – while using it for lens protection. I did not notice any significant effects. If I wish to be picky, very high contrast scenes (bright lights on a dimly lit street) may evidence a bit of ghosting. The filter is well-made, sturdy, and has no visible flaws in the glass or coatings.

Without meaning to demean anyone, I suspect that the average photographer would not recognize any ill effects in their images due to this filter. I obtained the 72 mm which I recommend without reservations.