Ali Shah wrote:
> OH NO!! No debates please. Here is what I think about
> no filter/filter:
>
No debates, just hard fact and a caution.
1. Read the fourth test of 50 mm lenses, the 50/1.4 MC with and without
filter, and the Notes.
http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
2. If you feel a filter is necessary for any given lens, by all means
get one. Then TEST IT before use for any shots you might care about.
> If the front element is exposed which means it couild
> be easily damaged, such as on the Sigma 10-20 or any
> wide angle lens, a filter is needed
>
> Also if the lens is expensive ($800 +), I would
> imagine that anyone would want to protect the front
> element.
>
Whatever your definition of expensive, I assume that might mean high
quality. It would seem prudent to me to make sure not to lose the
quality you paid for by using a poor filter.
Some time before you joined the list, we had a rather excitable young
man here who fairly regularly posted about how awful one of his (two?)
Zuikos was, and how it made him about Zuikos in general and their WAs
in particular. There was a lot of traffic on the subject with others
making suggestions, etc. I seem to recall it may have been a 28/2.8.
One day, a light went on and I asked him if he had a protective filter
on it and if so, no matter brand or apparent quality, would he take a
few shots without it. Problem solved and anti Zuiko posts by an OM user
on the list stopped. We then had a small spate of laudatory posts about
the same lens, but that was much more pleasant.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|