Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug, you do shoot som magnificient wildlife pictures proving at least that the absence of the UV filter does not have a visible bad effect on the pictures. I now have both leica and zeiss glass and the optics seems to be better protected against dust etc. than the canon lenses that used to be my standars equipment so perhaps i should try without the filter! ( its still a little scarry to me) Regards Ruben Doug Herr wrote: >on 12/15/03 7:20 PM, RUBEN BLĘDEL at ruben@rhodos.dk wrote: > > > >>Ted, Greg, Tina >>you have probably discussed this a 100000000 times but what is all the >>fuss about sky or uv filters - I once had the front glass on my 50 mm on >>my first camera (a rollei 35 M / big ugly 35 mm slr) ruined by a small >>stone trown from a passing cars tire, since that time I have them on all >>my lenses and they never caused a problem - I dont get it are we >>talking leica religion here - please inlighten me - Regards Ruben >> >> >> > >Reuben, with out a controlled experiment how can you be certain the stone >would have been stopped by a UV filter? It could also have been shattered >into a zillion pieces, all propelled toward the lens. > >In backlit situations, the additional 2 air/glass surfaces will clearly make >themselves known, and under other lighting conditions they can cause >additional flare too (though you might not notice it w/o controlled tests). > >My lenses have been UV-less for over 20 years, and they're in great >condition; but then my lenses are all Leitz or Leica with their tough >coatings. If you have some lesser brands of lenses they might have softer >coatings and some form of protection may be prudent. > >Doug Herr >Birdman of Sacramento >http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html