Naah...I am not stubborn just cautious I guess.
However, I am not going to debate this cuz I know you
are right also. The instructor teaching the photo
workshops that I took a while ago also didnt believe
in filters then again he also preferred to stick with
only a 50mm lens! 8-)) Seriously tho..I nicked the
element on one ZD 50-200, luckily Dell exchanged it. I
will test the lenses out with and without filter.
I have a friend who shoots with the Canyon 10-22mm and
he seems to love his Hoya super thin filter (whatever
version he has).
> You are a stubborn man, Ali. You apparently didn't
> read the suggested
> reference and continue to generalize and make
> assumptions based on
> price, reputation, etc.
>
> "Please note that this particular filter is not
> indicative of Vivitar or
> Vivitar VMC filters, in general. It just tested as a
> poor sample. Other
> filter makers, even the most highly regarded, have
> been found to have
> poor samples in selections taken from used and new
> stocks of filters.
> The use of the term "poor" means star test images,
> viewed on a vertical
> auto collimeter, which show images that are:
> multiple and overlapping,
> fuzzy, off center, and images which rotate when the
> lens is rotated.
> More often than not, only one of these faults are
> found in an examined
> filter. These filters (including the test filter)
> often look
> perfectly good when examined without the aid of
> instrumentation!"
>
> Are you sure the fancy coated Hoyas use any
> different glass than the
> cheap ones? Sure, B&W and Heliopan "tend to be
> better quality", so your
> odds are better, but why take a chance?
>
> With a digital camera, checking a filter takes only
> a few minutes and
> costs nothing. Shoot a couple of images with good
> detail with and
> without filter and do a little pixel peeping. With
> the camera tripod
> mounted and a stationary subject, you can stack the
> images in layers and
> readily see any differences. I personally would
> prefer a cheap filter
> that has shown no image degradation to an expensive
> one that hasn't been
> tested - less money, better odds.
>
> Even at that, I simply don't use a filter unless in
> circumstances where
> the lens might be at risk. One problem with digital
> is that the front
> surface of the sensor assembly is much flatter than
> film ever is, and
> may be shinier than most emulsions. So there is a
> problem with some
> lenses of light reflected from sensor assembly to
> lens and back to the
> sensor. I know its been a particular problem with
> some of the MF 90/x.x
> macro lenses. Part of the process of adapting lenses
> for digital has
> been ever more complex coatings to reduce this
> problem.
>
> None of the surfaces in a lens are perfectly flat,
> but those of a filter
> are intentionally very flat, and thus perfect
> mirrors. I wish I had
> saved the url or image; I did see an example posted
> somewhere of a ghost
> image in a night shot with a bright light in it that
> disappeared without
> the filter. Hmmmmm, dark interiors of abandoned
> buildings with bright
> sunlight shining through broken places, I wonder....
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|