Re: UV filters on sexy lenses

[Paul Stenquist]

In truth, there's no comparison. In the shot laeled 29, flare has 
basically ruined the photo. A huge ribbon runs down the middle, the 
trees are muddy and the result is uneven. In 30, the image is clear and 
crisp. UV filters are strictly for amateurs and neurotics. Why would 
anyone buy a great lens and cover it with a mediocre filter. It defies 
logic.
Paul
On Jul 31, 2004, at 9:19 PM, Derby Chang wrote:

I haven't had a great lot of time to do tests with the 43mm Ltd, but 
it sure is a comfortable lens to hold.

On the discussion about UV filters, there is definitely a difference 
between nekkid lens and lens with the cheapie UV filter. But not as 
much as I would have thought. These two shots are a bit of a torture 
test (29.jpg is with the filter, and 30.jpg is without). Not 
particularly interesting photos I admit, but it's interesting to see 
how much flare affects the image (like around the headland - Mrs 
Macquarie's chair). When not shooting into the sun, it really isn't 
that noticeable. I'd left the hood at home too.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc/pics/29.jpg
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc/pics/30.jpg
D
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc
http://derby.agreatserver.com/ (galleries)
http://derby.150m.com/ (blog)