John, > I dropped a Nikon while in Italy and the UV filter was ruined but it saved > the lens. That said, since > moving into digital from strictly using Hasselblad I have not added UV > filters to my lenses. I never even thought about adding UV filters with > medium format and I wonder if adding another surface to the front of the > lens is necessary. What is the "real" justification for adding another piece > of glass to an expensive lens?
ah, my favorite topic! :) About 25 years ago somebody gave me a F3, a 50mm lens and a UV filter "for protection". I never doubted it and every time I bought a new lens, I also bought a UV filter...until I got my first D1 about 4,5 years ago. There is a HUGE (for my taste at least) difference in image quality with or without a UV filter in front of expensive glass. With the D1 tethered to my PC I could see the difference for the very first time in (almost) real time and under a totally controlled setting. Since I made these tests, I never ever used any filter in front of my lenses, except the occasional polarizer. If you have the chance, put your camera on a tripod, connect it to a computer, switch everything (especially white balance) to manual and check all your lenses with or without filter. You will also discover other things...for example different lenses by different makers have a very different color temperature. After I saw this I replaced all Sigma HSM lenses (they are all more or less yellow, but definitely not the same) with Nikkors, which have all more or less the same, a bit more "cold/neutral" color temperature. Good to hear that the filter protected your lens, but I just use always my lens hoods for protection. Juergen =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
