I use a Pentax SMC UV filter on my A* 200 macro for lens protection, and
I have not noticed any degradation in the image quality. Every now and
then I wind up having to remove and clean the UV filter due to a major
problem - like when the rig tips over and goes lens first into muck. It
is a relief to be able to simply remove and clean the filter and not
have to worry about the lens glass. Otherwise I don't bother with
protective filters. If the lens is worth it and if you are using it in a
setting where it could be damaged, it makes sense to use a high quality
filter.
I use Tiffen filters for other applications - generally B&W film
photography - and have never had any problems with them. A coated or
multicoated filter would be est, though.
Mark
On 11/2/2013 7:00 AM, 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.
