[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
- Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
- From: "John A. Lind" <jlind >
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:50:50 +0000
- References: <001701c09bbd$021cf3f0$a29b9c40 >
I use a UV 0 on all lenses. First, it cuts some of the distant haze
outdoors. Second, I found it warms the flash slightly indoors by cutting
out some of the higher UV component. There *are* some benefits visibly had
by at least some of us using a UV 0 filter.
However, the mistake many make with filters is buying a very expensive,
optically superb lens, then "cheaping out" by buying the most dirt cheapest
filter they can, and then screwing it on in front of their world-class
optics. I use AR coated B+W or Heliopan filters for this very reason. I
believe I may still have a Vivitar VMC and a Hoya UMC floating around (both
Yes, an uncoated no-name filter on a world-class lens causes optical
degradation that wastes the lens' fine qualities. Filters in general are
not necessarily inherently Evil Bad Things if they are of a quality
befitting the lens on which they are used and are as cared for as a fine
lens should be.
- -- John
At 04:41 2/21/01, Marc James Small wrote:
>There is NO benefit and some drawback to using an auxiliary filter to
>"protect" the lenses on your camera. Read what the camera manufacturers
>say - don't do this! they intone. If you're not careful, I'll ask Ted
>Grant and Jim Brick and Mike Fletcher to step over here a second to correct
>your approach on this!
>msmall FAX: +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!