Jonathan tan wrote:
>
> In practice I never bother with protective filters.So far I've never
> damaged the glass of a lens and I consider myself an average user,not
> careless but also not extremely careful.
> So what do you guys think?Did you ever come across any camera/lens maker that
> strongly recommend the use of a protective filters on their lenses?
>
On the lenses I use all the time I always have a filter on - my 28mm
tends to have a polarizer on the front, 50/1.8 and 135/3.5 both have a
skylight. I can't bear the thought of getting a nick on the front
element, and I have managed to get some scratches on the filters, which
presumably would have been on the lens if it had been naked. Your 'so
far' instinctively makes me nervous - you'd kick yourself if you damaged
the lens, wouldn't you? I'd recommend using a filter, as I really don't
think it affects the image quality at all noticeably.
By the way, the rationale behind filtering the UV out, as I understand
it, is that it can allegedly affect the blue layer of the film, giving a
blue haze to your images. You're right that if UV is a problem
manufacturers might as well put an appropriate coating on the front
element, but I think I'd still be persuaded by the protection argument.
> (it is scorching hot here in singapore 30-33 degree celcius and humidity is
> about 70-85% as contrast with being shower with snow in north america/canada!)
>
> Jonathan Tan
>
Aha, but if we just wait twenty years, global warming will have made
Singapore an howling waste of uninhabitable desert, while Britain and
North America will have no rain and year round high temperatures!
Roger
(in grey, overcast, cold, rainy London)
< 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 >
|