I've replaced a number of filters over the years. They did what I wanted
them to do, provide a relatively inexpensive insurance against f******
up and damaging an expensive to replace front lens element.
After they took the hit, I said goodbye & bought new filters to replace
them.
On 5/6/2014 1:11 PM, Mark C wrote:
I use skylight filters on a few lenses with no issues. I think plain
glass is probably best, but I bought skylight and UV filters back in the
film days and see no need to replace them. I wound up with some skylight
filters because I stumbled onto some Pentax SMC skylights at a good
price and I figured that a SMC filter would be a good choice to minimize
flare.
These days I don't use protective filters on many lenses, though I do
use an SMC skylight on the A*200mm macro, which accounts for most of my
shots. The nature of macro work - this lens has been poked, gone face
down into the mud, and suffered other indignities that are less frequent
in general shooting. Unlike the 100mm macros I use, the front element is
not recessed so I like to have the protection of a filter on it.
Mark
On 5/6/2014 11:09 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
One of the several reasons i wanted to get the Pentax 17-70 was its
filter size. I have a number of 67mm filters and did not have to add
to the lot. Although the Sigma is a much nicer lens IMO even with the
reverse zoom, buit its a 72 mm filter. The salesman asked if i needed
protection, and i told him no need i did not want any more children
<ba dum>
I said i'm sure i have a 72 filter some were, ( opps they are 77mm)
and he said if not come back and he'll set me up, "JUST DON'T GET A
SKYLIGHT" he said. I did not ask him why he thought that way, but then
it started to think about it.
Why not a skylight for protection, is the UV1 better suited,??
Dave
--
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.
