Winsor Crosby wrote:
>Mike Johnston has an interesting article about filters and flare which
>reinforces my own prejudice to only use a filter if it will improve the
>picture......
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
>
And he doesn't even mention the problem of bad filters. As Gary said at
the end of his test of an excellent 50/1.4 with a bad filter,
"These filters (including the test filter) often look perfectly good when
examined without the aid of instrumentation!"
And even in the few years I've been on the list, we've had our own
special example. Remember Alberts endless complaints about his 28/2.8
that just wasn't as sharp as his other lenses or as he thought it should
be. And the endless threads about it... When he finally took off the UV
filter that had been on it all the time, it suddenly got better.
I wouldn't call it a prejudice, I'd call it prudent practice. If you are
going to keep a filter on a lens all the time, you should do careful
with vs. without testing first.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|