Well put!
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frantisek Vlcek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: UV filters on sexy lenses
> OMG! This 'discussion' again. It's nothing more than a filler. Could
> this topic be added to the PDML mini-FAQ ;-) ? Like:
>
> "To-Filter or Not To-Filter, a debate-to-death"
>
> Among Photography's most black-and-white questions, like "Rule Of Thirds"
and
> "Rodinal vs. D76", which bring the hottest debates ("Film vs. Digital"
> omitted), is whether to use UV filters for protection of lenses. Some
> people swear by UV, some see it as ruining their lenses performance.
> Although this one doesn't bring so much name-calling, it still can
> evolve into hot debates, whose only purpose is filling in the daily
> quota of 400 PDML messages. The arguments fall into two groups:
>
> 1) Anything added to the lens is affecting the optical system, in a
> bad way. Why stick any 10 Euro filter on my 1000 Euro lens? I would
> never ruin the * (*Pentax/Leitz/Zeiss/...) glass by sticking a filter
> on top of it!
>
> 2) Better to bust a filter than a 1000 Euro lens front element.
>
> As usual, the two groups have different discourses, but do not see it.
> The issue isn't that bipolar after all. When one looks rationally on
> the issue, it's more about your shooting style and what you shoot.
>
> * yes, adding any more glass does affect the optical system.
> * how does it affect it depends much on the quality of the filter and
> other things around, like a good lenshood.
> * the most common degradation is lowering of contrast due to
> reflections off the filter back into lens
> * this can be battled by advanced multicoating (and "ghostless"
> filters like Asahi once made, which were curved to reflect the light
> somewhere other than the film area, and were quite effective)
> * advanced multicoated filters are quite effective as well
> * it's much cheaper to replace a filter than a lens front element
> * lenses can get damaged easily, either with shirt-cleaning (over
> time) or by things that bump into the glass, like your camera bag's
> straps or somebody's else camera bumping into yours while in a crowd
> * degradation of resolution due to filter's acting as optical element
> are usually very low to none with good quality filters (not your cheap
> ones), which are carefully ground to same standards as your lens'
> elements (planparallel surfaces)
>
> For somebody that shoots static things where he takes out the lens
> slowly out of a bag, sets up a tripod, etc. (akin to a LF user), the
> source of most damage is tripping over the tripod, camera falling
> lens-down onto gravel, or dropping the lens due to "too-much-coffee"
> shaking hands.
>
> For somebody that shoots things that move quickly, when one must move
> quickly and in crowds of people, there are many opportunities to nick
> a lens. I have just seen a nicked 3.5/15mm SMC-A (which is a lens
> impossible to filter or hood).
>
> While you may fall into one group, the other PDML members might be in
> the other. That's nothing bad about them or you (I hope <g>).
>
> Personally, I feel that if I do not have to care that much about my
> equipment, I am more open to photographs that present unexpectedly.
> But I was never known for good planned photographs like studio shots
> or great landscapes. Otoh, I know some photojournalists that do not
> cover their lenses with filters. So it's more like personal taste. Of
> course, most photojournalists have equipment from their paper, so it's
> not their own...
>
> I have had some photographs ruined by flare, which could be solved by
> removing the filter (it was an extreme light situation). I have had
> some _lenses_ ruined because I have not had a filter on them.
> Depends...
>
> Frantisek
>
>
