Some UV Filter truth.

[impulsive1]

UV filters are evil, and are out to take over the world!

UV filters will protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Pick a side. Devote your life to the appropriate point of view.

I think I am on the fence about this one. Although I do have UV filters on all my lenses I take them off from time to time.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Oooh!

Another thread that will polarize the forum.

Not if I stand at a proper angle to the sun

:lmao:

:thumbup:

 

[ann]

It's the holidays and I am trying to break free of boredom.:badangel:

I have wondered were some of these things came from and then I arrowed down to the bottom of the page, now I know !

 

[Derrel]

Oooh!

Another thread that will polarize the forum.

Not if I stand at a proper angle to the sun

:lmao:

:thumbup:

Come on people--we need somebody who can step up here and try and act as a diffuser, to soften the focus on the split-field type of close-up, magnified type of argument that's brewing here. It's sad to see the circular,polarizing nature of these arguments here. We need a graduated, neutral, less-dense attitude here. We need to maintain a mist type of outlook, one that is able to color compensate for the rose-colored glasses so many people seem to be viewing through. We cannot all be cross-starred and dreamy-eyed...surely somebody must have the center spot, and the absolute truth of the matter, free of all the multi-coated layers of broad-spectrum prejudice and darkness. This is no longer a laughing matter...somebody needs to come in and put a screw-in metal lens cap on this thread before somebody's front element gets caved in.

 

[sobolik]

People buy coins and then seal them in a case for the same reason. Protection from the elements. People protect everything.

I am of the belief that people insist on the image degradation argument because of ignorance not because of knowledge. The vast majority of the planet stands a better chance of damaging their lens than selling an image much less having an image rejected because of the "image degradation" we hear about.

 

[Dao]

josh that comment was to Bitter and the popcorn

Frankly , I never use a uv filter, never have and probably never will not even for protection. After 60 years never a scatch on a lens.

A polarizer some times .

Besides , who's truth is this, I am with Derrel on this (oh, my gosh, what is the world coming too):gah::taped sh:

:coffee:Beer to go with the popcorn

ann, WHAT has gotten into you? TWO uses of crazy emoticons in one, single post??? Have you been hanging out with erose86 or something?

:lmao: I dunno what you're talking about! Are you implying that I over-use emoticons? :greenpbl: Cause... I don't... not really...

Kinda... :hug::

LOL .. I think at one point, you may be able to write the whole sentence with only emoticons.

 

[ann]

Ok, I will step up to Derrel's challenge.

While viewing a video by someone with a very good background and rep said he had tested circular polarizers vs. linar and it was his observation there was no difference.

That there was no need to pay all that extra money for a ClP when the good old fashion one did the job.

 

[sobolik]

I am not against filters, but I cringe when I see $1500 70-200 for sale with a $12.00 Sunpack filter installed.

The lens can't focus on the filter. This should shock the image quality crowd. Dirty lens article

 

[sobolik]

Ok, I will step up to Derrel's challenge.

While viewing a video by someone with a very good background and rep said he had tested circular polarizers vs. linar and it was his observation there was no difference.

That there was no need to pay all that extra money for a ClP when the good old fashion one did the job.

There is no difference in price of apple to apple. The difference is in the response of the camera sensor.

" linear polarizers are incompatible with cameras that rely on split-beam optics for functions like metering and auto-focus. High-end digital SLRs may require circular polarizers, but the less expensive linear polarizers will work with most digital cameras, SLRs and rangefinders alike. When in doubt, get a circular." Filter options for digital cameras

 

[sobolik]

Oooh!

Another thread that will polarize the forum.

Not if I stand at a proper angle to the sun

:lmao:

:thumbup:

Come on people--we need somebody who can step up here and try and act as a diffuser, to soften the focus on the split-field type of close-up, magnified type of argument that's brewing here. It's sad to see the circular,polarizing nature of these arguments here. We need a graduated, neutral, less-dense attitude here. We need to maintain a mist type of outlook, one that is able to color compensate for the rose-colored glasses so many people seem to be viewing through. We cannot all be cross-starred and dreamy-eyed...surely somebody must have the center spot, and the absolute truth of the matter, free of all the multi-coated layers of broad-spectrum prejudice and darkness. This is no longer a laughing matter...somebody needs to come in and put a screw-in metal lens cap on this thread before somebody's front element gets caved in.

The only ones that need to go away are the ones that whine over the fact that healthy discussions take place.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

:lmao:

:thumbup:

Come on people--we need somebody who can step up here and try and act as a diffuser, to soften the focus on the split-field type of close-up, magnified type of argument that's brewing here. It's sad to see the circular,polarizing nature of these arguments here. We need a graduated, neutral, less-dense attitude here. We need to maintain a mist type of outlook, one that is able to color compensate for the rose-colored glasses so many people seem to be viewing through. We cannot all be cross-starred and dreamy-eyed...surely somebody must have the center spot, and the absolute truth of the matter, free of all the multi-coated layers of broad-spectrum prejudice and darkness. This is no longer a laughing matter...somebody needs to come in and put a screw-in metal lens cap on this thread before somebody's front element gets caved in.

The only ones that need to go away are the ones that whine over the fact that healthy discussions take place.

:heart:

 

[adversus]

If you don't want your expensive camera gear showing wear and tear, I recommend a different hobby and/or profession.

I'm not putting a $30 piece of plastic or glass in front of my $700+ optics.

 

[LightSpeed]

Which is exactly what you have done.

What you posted is certainly not new thoughts about the issue.

Not quite. You see, The true beginners here get confused when they see rhetoric regarding UV/protection filters and references that a lens hood provides greater protection, which is simply not true. Though a hood may provide some level of protection, it does absolutely nothing for keeping dust and debris off of the front lens element. 0 Nothing. We're not talking about beating a lens with a hammer like you posted on another thread. We're talking years of accumulation. I don't think any of us here are going to pick up a hammer and beat the crap out of a front lens element on canon L glass, just to prove a point. On the other hand I am quite sure that many here will take their cameras out in the field for hours at the time, many times a year. There's a very very slight difference between that and beating the hell out of a lens with a hammer. Pardon me for being sarcastic. I wasn't referencing scratches typically found on the side of a Benz where a key and jealous culprit are involved as much as I referenced abrasion, hairline fractures in coatings and whatnot.

josh that comment was to Bitter and the popcorn

Frankly , I never use a uv filter, never have and probably never will not even for protection. After 60 years never a scatch on a lens.

A polarizer some times .

Besides , who's truth is this, I am with Derrel on this (oh, my gosh, what is the world coming too):gah::taped sh:

:coffee:Beer to go with the popcorn

60 years???????? I can assure you that if I go half that long in photography and have nothing to show for it, I'll quit and move on to shuffleboard. No disrespect intended mam. It's my truth based on what I've seen done to rifle scopes. If you've been cleaning a front element of a lens for 60 years, on and off, I can find a scratch and/or abrasion on it. Below you'll find a video. Please do click on it. I can assure you that I am not a hacker , nor am I out to get anyone. Though the music SUCKS the video in this case is very informative. Some might say, " Do you believe everything you see on youtube?" My answer to this is no, but I don't see any of your video tutorials on this subject, anywhere.



I sort of compare the UV filter issue to believing in God. Some people don't believe in God but I'll take my chances believing now rather than finding out that I am wrong later, when it really counts.
Not to open an entirely new can of worms, that is.

 

[Josh66]

What Keith was saying is that you are just reposting what someone else told you.
You say you aren't, but you haven't shown us one example of anything that comes directly from your own personal experience.

And since when does 'having something to show' have anything to do with having scratched up lenses? Just because Ann hasn't ruined her lenses in 60 years doesn't mean she hasn't produced anything worthwhile. The two are completely unrelated.

 

[LightSpeed]

What Keith was saying is that you are just reposting what someone else told you.
You say you aren't, but you haven't shown us one example of anything that comes directly from your own personal experience..

Actually, I'm not reposting what someone else told me. I posted my experience with rifle scopes as mentioned in the first post. Not to be rude, but your reading comprehension skills escape me. I don't think I said that Ann hasn't produced anything worth while. She probably has. I said that if I haven't in 60 years time, I'll give up photography and move on to something better suited to my age. If you feel the need to be Keith's mouthpiece, I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with you at this juncture.