Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 5:24 AM +0100 12/16/03, RUBEN BLĘDEL wrote:
>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
The Canon optics also do better without any filters; the only time a
clear or near-clear filter should be used is if there is obvious
danger from sand, dust, salt spray or the like, or, if like Jerry,
you regularly bash your front element against rocks. :-) :-)
I've been taking pictures since the early 50's, and the only lens
I've had a UV filter on consistently was a collapsible Summicron on
my IIIg, as it had _very_ soft coatings.
I've never had a front element damaged, even though I do a fair bit
of photography in bad conditions (construction sites, industrial
plants, etc.). I do have a protective filter for most of my lenses,
and use it when required, but take it off when not.
My own testing has shown to my satisfaction that UV filters can
degrade the image.
This comes up again and again and again. Check the archives. When
thoroughly confused, do your own tests.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html