On Jun 22, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Frantisek wrote:
GD> Did you look at the link I posted? I think the degradation is
quite
GD> noticeable in the pictures that person presented.
Ugh. Yes I did. So what? One example on a cheap zoom versus thousands
of good photographs with filters. And the person with the 28-105
didn't even post the results after removal of filter. So how am I to
compate? The link doesn't prove anything.
Even more, his filter might have been badly seated. I wouldn't be
surprised at bad results when the filter is not planparallel to the
lens/film. And a lot of filters can get loose under use/abuse.
Jeez, Fra. It's a lens that is known to produce very nice results
and, besides, the link was supplied as an example of *possible*
sharpness/rendering problems with filters, it wasn't intended to
"PROVE" anything. Your comment about "filter being badly seated"
sounds to me like your grasping at straws for a way to DISprove
something.
I have tested using a B+W 49mm MRC UV filter and a Pentax F50/1.7
lens, a known good performer. There is a noticeable degradation of
resolution wide open ... Not significant enough to say that it is
unusable, but it *is* noticeable.
On this basis, and the basis of many other such observations over the
course of my 40+ years of doing photography, I don't use filters
unless I have a specific reason to filter light. They ALWAYS cost
something.
That's my last statement on this subject. I really don't care whether
you agree with it or not, or care to use filters or not. I'm simply
reporting what I have seen time and time again, and making a
recommendation based upon it.
Have a good time,
Godfrey
