Awesome Northrup videos!

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

whumber wrote:

He's completely correct on both of those counts. Roger over at LensRentals has written articles about the same topics with the same conclusions.

Any damaged lens means profit for Roger.

Then, shooting with a naked, large front element, is equal to going out in full sunshine and wind without any eye protection and opening eyes as wide as possible to be beaten by the aforementioned.

It is as stupid as it gets.

Tony perhaps has money to burn a forest coming from clicks of the one million losers, but not much common sense to lit even a candle.

He also brags about shooting full sun at mid day, to achieve a need to restore 10 stops of information from contrasts, despite that that practice with any larger lens literally cooks the insides of the camera, and can quickly permanently damage the sensor.

People are mostly listening to absolute doodles when it comes to photography. Therefore you deserve to become like them.

Instead of doing what those nincompoops are suggesting, why don't you outclass them – buy a new camera and a new lens, and then play eggs tapping with them against rocks, straightaway.

Be Tony's Tony, and Roger's Roger.

Here's what Roger actually said:

"Evaluate the cost to benefit ratio of using a UV filter. Don’t use a $100 filter to protect a $100 front element.
Evaluate the situation. If you are in a high-risk environment, use a filter to maximize your protection.
Never, ever use a cheap $30 filter unless you don’t care about image quality."

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

He largely did not use UV filters back in the day because front elements didn't cost much to replace compared to the cost of the UV filter, but for newer lenses that cost more to replace, he may use them. For private use, adding a filter or not depends largely on if you intend on reselling the lens.