On 03/11/2013 11:11 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 11/3/2013 9:42 PM, Bob W wrote:
My claim, and my years of experience back this up, is that for normal
purposes nobody will be able to see the degradation without the type
of equipment needed for conducting formal tests. Ergo for all intents
and purposes, it does not exist and the filter does no harm. Nobody,
in the 40 or so years I've been taking pictures, has ever looked at
one of my photos and pointed out an image quality problem
attributable to using a clear filter (other than internal
reflections. Once), and I suspect it has never happened to anyone
else either.
I couldn't agree more.
My A*600/6.6 came with a great big Tamron UV filter on it, which
considering how much I paid for the bloody lens, I decided to leave on.
I couldn't get a sharp image out of that lens no matter how hard I tried.
I wrote it off to having insufficient tripod and head, though I was
using it on a Zone VI wood tripod and whatever the big Zone VI head is
(some sort of rebadged Manfrotto). Eventually I twigged to the
possibility the filter was causing the problem so I removed it, and
viola! instant sharpness.
My wife has a little statuette of a Rottweiler puppy that now uses the
122mm Tamron filter as a display base.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
