Re: [Leica] Vintage LUGgers need not read. Filters, the second installment.

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

At 11:55 PM 3/22/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Jim,
>
>> (hell... I don't actually know a single
>> professional photographer that uses a UV filter... for anything, except for
>> perhaps a drink coaster.) 
>
>I can't understand why it seems to anger you but....., many, many
professional 
>photographers permanently mount UV's on their lenses, each for our own
reasons. Every 
>pro who uses the larger Canon telephoto lenses won't even have the choice. 
>When it comes right down to it, this is a subject that's not worth arguing
over because 
>it's basically inane.
>
>Regards,
>Danny Gonzalez
> 

Yes Danny, you are correct. I reluctantly brought it up again. I was
pressured, so I gave in! I'm simply telling it how I see it. Nothing more,
nothing less.

And it is for sure that I could care less what other people do with their
cameras and lenses. I simply go through the logical thought processes, the
technical processes, quotes (from Leica), and then it is up to each
individual to do what pleases them.

I DID NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN. And next time I will refrain from
making even a single comment. Let the filters fall where they may.

I tried humor, but it didn't work. Maybe now?

As for the professionals you know that permanently mount UV's to their
lenses, just think of how good their photographs could be :) Some very
large telephotos come with a UV or plain glass filter. The lens was
designed for use with that filter. A noctilux wasn't. Some exotic and very
very expensive lenses have no filter threads. OH NO! :(  Toto, I don't
think we are in Kansas any more.

Now we are going from inane to insane.

Das ist alles,

Auf Weidersehen,

Dorothy