For Birds Skylight Filter or Not?

[Ian McHenry]

Being one of the old school who was brought up in the belief of always using either a skylight or UV filter I now wonder whether these soften bird images?
Just wonder what is the current thinking?
Presumably the lens hood gives sufficient protection to lens except in windy conditions.
With Thanks:
Ian Mc :http://www.pbase.com/ianmc/root&page=all

[Doug West]

I've never, ever used a skylight or uv filter on my lens. All that filter is doing is adding
one more layer of glass that isn't needed, no matter how great or expensive that filter
might be.

With the advancement of glass, I just don't see a need.

Doug

[Diane Miller]

So much of old school thought is outdated today -- not only with equipment, but with processing ideas. Things improve. As Doug said, filters are a layer of glass to reflect light and get dirty. The advantage a skylight or UV filer provided with film is easily matched with a small tweak of sliders in raw processing. Even the effects of a polarizing filter can be emulated in processing to an amazing degree, with the exception of quenching reflections.

[DickLudwig]

In the film days I never saw any improvement in the finished slide with either the UV or Sky Light filter.
The main reason they were sold was as front element protection. It was also a high profit item to sell.
Most photographers don't like them for the reasons stated above - all said and done in best case, they don't improve the image and are prone to imaged degradation.
I believe that most digital sensors already have a UV protection layer on the protective glass.
So bottom line I wouldn't use one on my lenses.