The coatings people are so worried about are there to reduce flare. I'm really not understanding why someone would permanently mount a flare-producing filter on a coated lens to protect the anti-flare coating. What's worse is the idea that one must pay as much as possible for the flare-inducer. I seem to see numerous posts regarding the improved flare resistance of modern expensive lenses as a major justification for their purchase, so what gives? Buy an expensive lens for superior flare resistance and image quality, then mount a flare-inducing and non-focusing filter to it to ensure every picture suffers? Might as well just use cheap lenses and spend the balance on film instead.
If filters didn't cause flare, they wouldn't be coated. And lenses are coated and still suffer from flare. So spare me the "yeah, but XXX brand filter is coated so it alone WON'T flare." If filter coatings were so good they *completely eliminated* flare, they'd coat lenses with the same stuff, now wouldn't they?
Also seems kind of silly to pay more than a few bucks for a lens that is coated with something so soft as to cause irrepairable harm if it is ever so much as touched. And why rub something on your lens surface regularly if you are so concerned about the coatings? I'd ditch the lens pen and filter and use a blower and brush, resorting to a soft touch with a soft cloth and cleaner for smudges.
But then, I have numerous shots of ugly flare from filters followed by much better flare-free shots of the same scene. Yeah, it's probably because I haven't spend enough money yet :/
Filters have a use, just like tripods and flashes. I'm not sure why something that is good to use for specific shots *must* be good to use for every shot.
