I have relatively cheap filters on all my lenses. I used them from the first first camera I bought because my camera salesman insisted that I buy a filter and keep it on at all times to prevent myself from damaging the lens. I really like having the filters still because a filter means that I can clean my lens by licking it and wiping it on my shirt. That reason pacifies salespeople who sometimes question my purchase of a low end filter for an L lens.
For years though, I never realized how terrible those cheap filters are. It wasn't until a discussion here about it that I set out to test it myself. I bulb and tripoded pictures with and without filters and compared them side by side in photoshop. I was astounded at the differences in picture quality. Having learned that lesson, I still use cheap filters, but I constantly ask myself if a particular picture might be one that I should take the filter off for, and if it is, then I take the filter off. I still get the day to day benefits of the filter that let me skimp on TLC for the front element and they are easy to remove when I don't want image degredation. On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:17:06PM -0000, Peter Hancock wrote: >You guys having put me straight about focal lengths and 1.6x digital >sensors, I'm now the proud owner of a 24-105L. Since this will live on >the camera, I'm inclined to get it a protection filter. The official >Canon one seems relatively cheap compared with, for example, B+W. I >presume they ought to be OK, anyone know otherwise? -- void *(*(*schlake(void *))[])(void *); * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
