Eric, my first two FA Limited lenses came with matching SMC UV filters
(one silver, one black to match the lens barrel colors). Beside these,
I'm using only B+W filters. Normally my more valuable lenses have
protective filters attached. Israel is a dusty country, thus I prefer to
have to clean the filter and not the lens surface.
Beside that, I don't see any visible image degradation. Off the top of
my head, the filters may cause flare more easily if the lens to which
they are attached is a wide angle one. Then, even if you use the hood
(which I do all the time) due to the fact that the filter will
effectively make the hood more shallow - the flare will be easier to catch.
The "to filter or not to filter" is a typical "big endian/little endian"
question - so if a debate begins anew, it goes on without an end...
Boris
On 11/2/2013 1:00 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
Midway in my walk back in September I replaced the lens cap on the A
28/2.8 with a uv filter. Recently I thought I ordered 49 and 67 mm uv
filters [Tiffen] for use as lens protectors on two other lenses. When
the order arrived I had two 67 mm flyers, one uv, one uv haze.
My first thought was to return the haze, but reading up a little I
thought maybe I’d keep it. In a discussion of uv vs. uv haze on
photo.net, however, I encountered a diversity of opinions about
filter vs. no filter and uv vs. haze, and strongly negative opinions
about Tiffen.
I’d be interested in this group’s thoughts.
Thanks,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA [email protected]
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from
our children."
- Chief Seattle
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
