Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #1287

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #1287
From: "Barry B. Bean" <bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:32:45 -0600 (CST)
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:39:25 -0800 (PST), Joseph wrote:

>>>  I don't think using a filter on a $75-100 lens is cost
>>>effective either.
>
>>No? You'd rather replace a $100 lens than a $20 filter? I don't
>>understand your logic.
>
>Because I'll be replacing that $20 filter several times over the life
>of the $100 lens.  

Now I'm really confused. If you're replacing that $20 filter so
often, wouldn't you rather be scratching and wearing out the coatings
on those filters than your lens?

While I can see how a studio photographer who works in controllable
situations, or a well-funded pro who can replace lenses at will would
forego filters. Why not get every bit of image quality you can?

However, for poorly funded pros, freelancers, amateurs, and those of
use who often shoot in dusty, wet, and windy conditions, the tradeoff
seems much more reasonable.

BBB
-
B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel                              
bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peach Orchard, MO                                       
http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz