Re: [Leica] Re: Are UV filters "safety glasses" for the lens?

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Michael - I am certainly more with you than against you. I use my M 
because it is a rangefinder, a quiet, dependable, rangefinder, not 
because it is a Leica. If Nikon had maintained its rangefinder line my 
guess is that"s what I'd be using today because I like those bodies.

Yes, Leica lenses are great. My 35 1.4 ASPH can't be beat. But I am also 
very happy with my Cosina 50 and 75. Like you, I am not blowing anything 
up to 30x40, and I am not shooting slow slide film. I am shooting Tri-X, 
almost always rated at 800 or above, and what I care about is the 
"picture," not the micro resolution. And, yes, I would rather lose a bit 
of contrast than lose a $1500 lens. No question about it.

All of which explains why, after being cowed into retiring my UV 
filters, I have lately started hauling them back out again to put them 
into service. Okay, I'll take them off when I have to shoot into the 
sun, or under otherwise horrible flare and reflection producing 
conditions. But otherwise...It's time for some photo safe sex!;-)

B. D.


Michael Darnton wrote:

> There's an assumption which develops every time this discussion comes 
> up, which precedes the flame war which ultimately happens, and that is 
> that we care about squeezing the ultimate out of our lenses. Speaking 
> for what must be a certain percentage of Leica owners, I didn't buy it 
> for the quality of the optics, I BOUGHT IT FOR THE VIEWFINDER SYSTEM. 
> My lenses are a mix of Leica, Canon and Voigtlander, and some are old 
> and outdated by almost every standard (my 85/1.5, for instance), and 
> absolutely, undoubtedly not up to even 1970 standards. What they DO 
> do, however, is take pictures, which I don't blow up to 30X40" to 
> prove how good a technician I am, because I'm not, and I don't 
> scrutinize them with a magnifying glass. A large number of Leica 
> photos of the past ended up on bleeding newsprint at 80dpi, and 
> sharpness was not a factor then, either, but the photos still 
> communicated.
> 
> For me, filters are fine. Filters with dirt on them are usually fine, 
> and if not, I wipe them with my shirt; and filters with scratches on 
> them are cheap to replace. I like to carry my lenses ready in pockets 
> and knocking together in my bag; I treat my equipment shamelessly, and 
> knock the paint off everything fast, and trash the metal, and the 
> cameras still work. What I don't want, and won't tolerate, however, is 
> a nasty, fatal scratch on a $1000 piece of glass which I can't afford 
> to replace.
> 
> Jim (I pick on you because you're the leading force in the anti-UV 
> movement) I don't care if the filter degrades performance. You might 
> be right; you might be wrong. I don't care, and before you can 
> convince me filters are a quality issue, you have to convince me that 
> quality is an issue. :-)
> 
> I wonder how many people share that view. I bet more than a few, 
> though I don't think I've ever heard it succinctly stated here, which 
> is why I'm piping up at all. . . .
> 
> --Michael
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
> 
> 
>