At 21:01 2/5/00 , John Pendley wrote:
>I grew up being told that keeping a UV or skylight filter on a lens, for
>protection of the front element, is a bad idea. The argument went something
>like this. "Why spend hundreds of dollars on precision glass and then put a
>cheap piece of $*&# in front of it? Beside, it adds another glass-to-air
>interface." What do you all think about the question?
You've hit on the arguments for both major opinions on this. I side with
those who put a UV on the front. Along with protection, it also avoids
cleaning the front element. The filter gets cleaned instead. I
occasionally take it off if there is high risk of flare. Yes, it does add
another air-glass interface but I've never been able to detect the
difference with or without one. Never had any problem metering through
one. You're certain to hear the other side of this too.
>On a related note (this is all "related" to the original topic), if I don't
>feel like springing for Schneider or B+W filters, what's good? Tiffen?
For the UV's I try to find a B+W or Heliopan. IMHO they are the better
filters. Not as much the glass anymore (which is good optical glass) as
the dead flatness and parallel surfaces.
>I keep a UV on all lenses). That could mount up.
If you cruise by a decent camera store with a fair amount of used
equipment, you can periodically check their used filter bin and snag the
good ones when they show up.
-- John
< 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 >
|