Re: [Leica] Filters

[Thomas Kachadurian <kach@freeway.net>]

We've just finished hashing this out, so please forgive my LUG bretheren
for their quick responses. I assure you they were intended to be taken with
humor.

here's a recap.

1. Some of us he observed and can duplicate problems created by having a
filter on a lens. It's real, but limited to situation where there is lots
of stray light, or point light sources in or near the frame. It you always
shoot on sunny days with the light at your back, the filter, if it's clean,
won't make a difference.

2. Filters provide very little protection except from things that won't
hurt your lens anyways. If you are shooting where there's blowing sand or
other abrasives, hot sparks, or anything that can really attack you lens, a
filter is a good idea.

3. Fingerprints, dirt, dust, flying cow turd (ask Ted) can all be cleaned
of off today's hard coated lenses without leaving the slightest mark.

4. "cleaning marks" are a myth. If a lens has scratches, it's scratched,
not damaged from cleaning. And it takes a lot to scratch a lens.

5. Lenses have built in UV protection. You don't need a filter for that.

6. If you are a belt and suspenders kind of guy, and must use a filter,
make sure it's multicoated.

My own personal experience is that in years of professional use without
filters on any lenses (except in the hazardous conditions above) I have
never had a lens damaged in a way that a filter would have stopped. 

The whole filters as protection thing was dreamed up as a way to add high
mark-up items to low mark-up lenses. When I sold cameras, as a college
student, we received no commision on cameras or lenses (except Vivitar) and
got $2 to $3 for every filter, bag or flash that we sold. They paid us $2
on a $7 filter, does that tell you something about the mark-up. 

Bottom line. Mostly filters won't hurt your pictures. If you are making 4x6
prints at a mini-lab you won't see it. OTOH, if you push the limits of your
lens' capabilities, and, as you suggested, like to make some big prints,
you might think twice about putting anything in front of that prime Leica
glass.

Tom 

At 12:05 PM 3/22/98 -0500, you wrote:
>One of the most refreshing things about this list has been the utter lack
>of flaming, until I apparantly foolishly asked the question about UV filters.
>
>Now, would someone out there have the kindness to tell me whether, in the
>real world, where images are being blow up to 11x14 on rare occassion, and
>more normally are in the 5x7 to 8x10 range, whether the image degredation
>caused by a good quality UV filter outweighs the peace of mind of having
>full-time protection for a piece of glass in the 800-1500 range? (I can't
>afford to buy new, like those of you who talk about your $3,000 lenses -
>and, I can't help but wondering if part of the attraction for the equipment
>for some of you, as well as the necessity to be so rude about such a simple
>question, comes from wanting to tell the world that you can afford to pay
>those prices and then scorn protection)
>
>
>
>B. D.
>