Chris O'Neill wrote:
(snip)
IMHO, I think it's a matter of personal preference. For years, I kept
a UV filter on every lens "just in case." Now, I'm living life on the
edge and practicing "unsafe" photography. I feel that the non-presence
of a filter has slightly improved the sharpness of my images. Not that
my "safe era" shots were all that unsharp.
=======================================================================
Like Chris, I once used filters as a general rule for lens protection
but I stopped, earlier this year, because I considered they were
probably detracting from the contrast of my pictures. The "protection"
afforded by a filter can backfire: a broken filter can do enormous
damage to the lens front element. If you want "safe" photography,
you're better off with a good lens hood than a filter IMHO. The lens
hood adds value to the shot, too, by reducing stray peripheral light
and the resultant flare, whereas a UV filter can only make it worse by
encouraging flare.
Season's greetings to all listees,
Regards,
=====
Ray
"The trouble with resisting temptation is
you never know when you'll get another chance!"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|