I see no difference with UV filter on lens vs no filter.

I just bought a UV filter as I was told this was a must have filter. However, I don't notice any difference with the filter on the camera vs off.

What is a UV suppose to do any way? I did a search here and found a few of you talking about the filter is used as protection, but specifically what does the UV filter side of the filter do any way?

IMO, there is no point to a UV filter except to protect your lens. I have never used a UV filter and never will. It's not a must have. It's nice to have if you want it, but it's not a must have.

I believe it has more to do with film rather than digital...

photo.net/equipment/filters/

UV filters are used to reduce haziness created by ultraviolet light. A UV filter is mostly transparent to visible light, and can be left on the lens for nearly all shots. UV filters are often used for lens protection, much like clear filters. A strong UV filter, such as a Haze-2A or UV17, cuts off some visible light in the violet part of the spectrum, and so has a pale yellow color; these strong filters are more effective at cutting haze,[2][3] and can reduce purple fringing in digital cameras.[4] Strong UV filters are also sometimes used for warming color photos taken in shade with daylight-type film.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter#Clear_and_ultraviolet

chasrich wrote: I believe it has more to do with film rather than digital...

photo.net/equipment/filters/

UV filters are used to reduce haziness created by ultraviolet light. A UV filter is mostly transparent to visible light, and can be left on the lens for nearly all shots. UV filters are often used for lens protection, much like clear filters. A strong UV filter, such as a Haze-2A or UV17, cuts off some visible light in the violet part of the spectrum, and so has a pale yellow color; these strong filters are more effective at cutting haze,[2][3] and can reduce purple fringing in digital cameras.[4] Strong UV filters are also sometimes used for warming color photos taken in shade with daylight-type film.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_filter#Clear_and_ultraviolet

I use a UV on one lens and a Sky on the other, but only to protect the lenses.

Yeh these days they're just for protection.

NOT DROP PROTECTION!!!

I met a guy on the weekend who used a UV filter for protecting the front of his lens. I told him to turn his hood around because the hood will give him protection. He said "that's what the filter is for".

I'll tell ya for free that a hood will protect your lens from bumps and even drops a lot more than a piece of glass will. In fact if you drop a lens with a filter on the front the glass on the filter has a higher chance of shattering and the shards damaging the front element of the lens than the front element has of shattering itself. The front element of the lens is usually very strong and actually not that much to replace if anything goes wrong.

HOWEVER, for salt spray, sand/dust and even moisture sealing a UV/Clear filter is a good thing to have.

I have a UV filter on my 70-200 only. I had one on my 24-70 but took it off once and forgot to put it back on. LOL I'm not for or against protection filters, just use them when I think I need them.

Another one here for using filters for protection - but again only in conjunction with the supplied lens-hood.
I once tripped and fell into a muddy ditch while carrying both cameras, which got tangled-up and went lens first into the mud from six feet with my whole body-weight propelling them down.

Both lens hoods snapped off and were driven up the lens barrels of my 24-70 and 80-200. Both UV filters had minor scratches from the debris in the mud.
I am in no doubt that the lens hoods acted as 'crumple-zones', soaking up the impact and preventing damage to the lens' mechanisms, while the filters prevented the front elements from being damaged.

Any loss of image-quality caused by the addition of a UV or protection filter is so negligable that you'll only notice it in certain conditions (at night with point light-sources in the frame being the main one).

arkady001 wrote: Another one here for using filters for protection - but again only in conjunction with the supplied lens-hood.
I once tripped and fell into a muddy ditch while carrying both cameras, which got tangled-up and went lens first into the mud from six feet with my whole body-weight propelling them down.

Both lens hoods snapped off and were driven up the lens barrels of my 24-70 and 80-200. Both UV filters had minor scratches from the debris in the mud.
I am in no doubt that the lens hoods acted as 'crumple-zones', soaking up the impact and preventing damage to the lens' mechanisms, while the filters prevented the front elements from being damaged.

Any loss of image-quality caused by the addition of a UV or protection filter is so negligable that you'll only notice it in certain conditions (at night with point light-sources in the frame being the main one).

Nothing like a great example to bring home the message.

It is a old question but I still want to say something.

1, Before when we use film camera, UV filters do reduce the haziness by ultraviolet, if you do not use it, your photo may get blue cast; but now as we use digital camera more often(SLR and DSLR), CMOS Sensor is not so sensitive to ultraviolet any more, so unless you take photo at high attitude area, on the beach or snow place… there is no much influence no matter you use UV or not.
2, It Can protect your lens from water, dust, smudge, sand and so on, especially when there is multi-coated on your expensive lens. This function is really more important
than UV-resistance. As the protector with or without UV-resistance function are
the same price, people always think it is better to have it.

I want to know more about Fliters in United States, who can help?

UV filters are a waste of $$ IMO

Ian Stone wrote: UV filters are a waste of $$ IMO

Pretty much what I keep reading.  Personally, I'm not going to waste my money on one. 

Save your $$, UV filters are a joke