I doubt that a filter provides more profit than a camera body William !! Whilst I always used a compendium shade on the Blad I seem unable to find one for the 17mm lens on the Kodak ! A lens hood MAY protect the front element but in this case it did not
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3343&item=3824906154&rd=1 sweeping statements, like sweeping broom,often miss important crumbs :-)) Regards Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Rd, Ketley, Telford, Shropshire. England .TF1 5DJ 44 (0) 1952 618986. www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Negatives & transparencies from digital files ----- Original Message ----- From: "william.curwen" > UV FILTERS - BAD SCIENCE AND URBAN MYTHS > > The use of UV filters is an urban myth that deludes most photographers. The > myth comes from retailers who at the point of sale suggests to the customer > that maybe a UV filter on the front of the lens is a good idea to protect > the expensive purchase. Naturally, the customer says yes, and the profit in > the transaction for the retailer is with the filter NOT the camera. > > A UV filter should only be used to filter out UV light - geddit? Like up a > mountain at midday or whatever, NOT to protect the lens. The best thing to > protect a lens is a lens-shade which will take the knocks and most of the > spray of whatever kind of gunk is in the surrounding air. Get a deep > compendium type if needed. =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
