One of the problems with that Tom is that here in Taiwan, I have seen
quite a few lenses that don't have "fungus among us" as far as the front
element is concerned due to a filter in the front.. So in this type of
hostile environment, a front element filter is a must. I'm less worried
about the damage, more worried about the moisture..
Add Albert item:
Any other brand recommendations? What is everybody's views on Hoya?
Hoyas are generally considered to be as good as B+W (I've never owned or
used one, but that's the word), which themselves can be taken as a
reasonable industry benchmark in terms of build quality and usefulness in
the field. One indisputable advantage both brands enjoy are brass threads
(which will not snag the filter threads on your lenses).
Albert
Walt Wayman wrote:
Just another voice from the "amen corner." I've got lots of
filters, but unless there's a reason to use one, I don't. I know
some folks practice safe photogoraphy and keep a VU filter on at
all times to protect the lens. They are either way too cautious
or a little bit paranoid. Any lens whose performance isn't
degraded by having even the best filter on it isn't worth
protecting.
I agree it's never a good idea to put a filter on without good reason.
Re general use: it is _not_ foolish in my view to protect your front lens
element with a less-expensive glass element when working in the street (on
the beach, whatever). My filters routinely pick up various mars, scratches
and outright chips from use in the field. That sort of wear and tear is
inevitable in the street. It is much less expensive to replace a filter
than a front lens element (and in the case of Zuiko glass a lens element
which might well not be available anywhere for any price).
There are, also, many sound reasons to walk around with filter on when
working outdoors. In San Francisco, for instance, I habitually throw an 81A
or 81B on my color-film gear to better soften the effects of blue cast
which are prevalent in this city all day long (cold overcast skies, etc.).
Also, a polarizer (regular, ultra, warming) can be justified just about
anywhere where the photographer intends to shoot (during bright light)
scenes including the sky, not to mention window surfaces (of course you
might just as well want those reflections in the shot).
When it comes to B&W film (normally Tri-X for me) I usually walk around
with a yellow filter, sometimes an orange, depending on the light. A blue,
red or green filter of one description or another is also found in typical
use for B&W shoots (though I don't use those as much).
Indeed, for both color and B&W film, assuming broad daylight, I can hardly
imagine (would need to think about it) an instance where one kind of filter
or another would not only be appropriate but in all likelihood would
appreciably improve one's work.
The point I wish to make is that the use of filters is _not_ uncommon. Or
to put it another way, while a good reason ought to be found before using a
filter, that good reason, as often as not, does not fall far outside the
focus of an experienced photographer on many (if not most) shoots. Now
whether a photographer _chooses_ in any given instance to use that
filter(s) is another matter.
By the way, Albert, a general-purpose filter (UV, Sky) on the front of a
lens will not for long delay the incursion of fungus growth on the elements
inside. It should ameliorate against the invasion of water droplets through
the front element, but the lens itself is not hermetically sealed so the
combination of heat and so humidity still poses a problem.
Tris
< 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 >
|