I think, then, that this is the heart of the matter. Increased risk of flare (shooting into a light source is always risking flare, no?) vs increased risk of damage to the front element. I don't know if this is intended or not, as it may just be my sensitive hide, but I feel like I'm being told by some who choose not to use them that I'm really not a true and serious photographer should I consider putting on a clear filter. I react to it as a sort of "purist" snobbery. Unless I can be shown how it makes a difference in most or many settings, which I have not seen.
HI there Tom
I'm answering this question rather than the one you directed at me because it's more interesting! As far as front element replacement, I've no idea - expensive I imagine, at least after the passport warranty runs out!
So - the interesting bit is the 'purist' snobbery point. I think there are various aspects to this, and I guess it really is preference.
When my MATE arrived recently, it came with a leica slim UV filter on it - so I left it on, but I actually did think it created flare . . . so I took it off again, and like my other lenses, don't use them. I do also feel that the amount of effort that goes in to doing specific multicoating of the lenses designed for the particular lens must be compromised by sticking on a filter.
On the other hand (and quite inconsistently) I don't use lens hoods (except the built in kind on the longer focal lengths). Why not? Because I find the increased size and the encroachment in the viewfinder irritates me. I shelter the lens with my hand when I'm shooting near the sun (and I've got pretty good at that). The 28 'cron turns from a behemoth to a tiny lens :clap:
Back to the 'purist' snobbery - I find it astonishing and depressing that leica can't sell the lovely summarit lenses, and I can only put this down to the 'purist' snobbery argument. . . but of course, I don't feel that way about filters, because I agree with not using them :ROTFL::ROTFL:
I think that Tim has it - these things are down to personal preference, but, like you I really deeply resent the idea that you can't be a 'real' photographer if you don't do it 'properly'. In fact, I suffer from this all the time from 'real' landscape photographers who don't believe that you can take 'proper' landscape photographs without MF and a tripod. We all have to make compromises - otherwise everybody would be using 10x8 cameras!
Just a final note on the idea of the filter as protection. These type of insurance arguments are difficult to bottom out. With our computers at work, we don't every buy extended warranty - If I cost that out over the last 20 years, I'm pretty certain we could replace every one of our current computers with the money we've saved by not paying for the 'peace of mind'. I could certainly buy a small car by the money I haven't paid out on extended car warranty (driving 25,000 miles a year as I do) (if I hadn't already spent it on photo gear)
all the best
