I stopped using "protection" filters 25 years ago when I saw how much they cut image quality. I've only dropped a lens once, a Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S that was two weeks old, and no filter or hood would have prevented the damage to the lens' optical alignment that was caused (both filter and hood were on that lens at the time). It needed repair anyway.
Use good, rigid lens hoods and leave the extra glass behind. If you absolutely must use a protection filter, pitch those Quantaray things as far as you can and buy yourself a set of B+W MRC coated clear protection filters. And for heaven's sake, if you're going to use a filter, be *sure* you use a lens hood! When you notice how much filters cost in flare, it will be when you get image ghosts across the best evening photos you've ever taken, and which cannot be made again. Ask me how I know this... ;-) Godfrey On Apr 21, 2007, at 5:56 PM, Amita Guha wrote: > People tend to get into religious wars about this sort of thing. I'm a > firm believer in filtering my lenses, but I think I'm the only person > on the list who's ever dropped a camera on its front and had the UV > filter shatter and the lens remain ok. :) I've never noticed a > difference in quality, but I have started ponying up for the more > expensive B+W Multicoated filters rather than the cheap Tiffens I > started out with. That can add $50-$100 to the cost of each lens, but > better that than scratching the lens or worse, IMHO. > > Amita > > On 4/21/07, Maris V. Lidaka Sr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I generally leave my UV filter on my lens. My (aging) eyes don't >> see any >> difference in image quality with or without the filter, but there >> are those >> who disagree. >> >> Maris >> >> eric wrote: >>> I learn something new every day on this list, it seems. I'm >>> probably >>> still a youngin' compared to most of you (rolling over to 27 in >>> about >>> a month), and just started getting "serious" about photography late >>> last year when I picked up a *ist-DL. Wonderful camera, only >>> complaint of sorts is the lack of a hard protective cover over the >>> LCD, such as found on the Nikon D70. >>> >>> Anyways, in talking to my photography friends, most of which are my >>> age or younger, I was always told to never leave the house without >>> something capping the front element. Skylight and UV filters are >>> handy universal protectors. Seemed like perfectly sound advice to >>> me, considering I can't leave the bedroom without getting a spot >>> on a >>> white shirt. I can make it to the front door on a gray shirt. I >>> will have somehow put a scratch in the screen of a new PDA within >>> minutes of taking it out of the box. >>> >>> So yeah, not having some sort of protection on the front of >>> something >>> that has triple digits worth of investment in it does make me a bit >>> uncomfortable. It hadn't occured to me that these filters might be >>> degrading image quality, although it does make perfect sense now >>> that >>> I think about it. But considering that I'm still working on the kit >>> lens, and $300 is a HECK of a lot of money for me to drop on another >>> lens, am I really going to see that much of a difference between >>> filter and no filter? I picked up a 3 pack of Quantaray filters >>> (skylight 1A, polarizer, and UV). I tend to leave the skylight one >>> attached to the lens. I've tried both with and without, and can't >>> really see any real difference in quality, but then I've also been >>> focusing more on learning the camera, than getting Ansel Adams level >>> quality. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
