With regard to flare, an MC filter will be better than an SC or UC filter.
None of those possibilities will be better than no filter at all. Thomas is
right. Thomas is right.
So, If you are concerned about flare, don't add a filter; unless you need
one for other reasons, then pick a good quality MC version. And use the
hood regardless - it can't hurt, and may help.
Additional thought: contrast enhancing filters (yellow, orange, etc.) may
help if you are shooting black and white, but also may make things worse if
the hood can't keep the sun off of the filter.
Gary Edwards
people, places, flight at http://members.home.com/garyetx/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tris Schuler" <tristanjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] 21/3.5 SC vs 21/3.5 MC vs 21/2
> So your theory is that the MC process applied to a filter is useless? I
> would disagree with that. As for lens shades, they do serve a function and
> I use them religiously, even in the low-light situations. How filters
could
> serve the same purpose completely eludes me (if you didn't mean to say
that
> exactly, please explain further), unless you meant to refer to the
relative
> vignetting effect that regular-depth filter rings have wide-angle lenses,
> which might serve as a sort of "hood." With that I'd have to agree,
> though we're not talking much "protection" in that case.
>
> Tris
>
> >At 16:05 12.10.01, Tris Schuler wrote:
> >>I would add that if flare were a possible issue (say, with light
> >>streaming at a vicious angle across the lens--shooting into the sun
> >>isn't anything MC can handle) with a SC variant then I'd simply go with
a
> >>quality MC slim filter--and in that scenario a B+W would spring
> >>immediately to mind based on my (happy) experience with them.
> >
> >This would be a waste of time and money: An MC filter in front of your
> >lens does not make your lens any better at handling flare. Even the best
> >filter can only be transparent, and the air that the filter replaces is
> >already a very good approximation of that perfect filter.
> >At best you could only hope for your filter to act as a small lens shade,
> >and it would even be more expensive than a real lens shade.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Thomas Bryhn
> >
> >
> >< 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 >
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|