| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2011 05:49:37 PM · #1 |
Take a gander at this! Discuss. ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/16/2011 06:39:37 PM · #2 |
| I saw this earlier today. I didn't get to read the whol blog until now. Very telling how a good filter is better than a cheap one. I've got only a couple of UV filters and they are mostly handed out to my brother to use so I've not really used a UV filter in some years. I think I will keep doing what I'm doing, taking care of my glass. Just a touch of image quality loss is too much IMHO. |
|
|
|
06/16/2011 06:53:21 PM · #3 |
I'm in the "no filter has to be better than even an expensive filter, because I hate air-glass interfaces, BUT...
The effect you get from stacking multiple filters is geometric, not linear, so I really don't think this has proved much at all on the relative degradation between a single high-quality and a single mediocre-quality filter. Since I'd only ever put a UV filter on my lenses in a situation that is highly abrasive (like to shoot on a beach in a howling wind, or something) I'll stick with the inexpensive ones, and sacrifice 'em as needed (which I've anyway never needed to do).
R. |
|
|
|
06/17/2011 10:49:41 AM · #4 |
I thought it was a really original way to compare quality. I'm in the same camp as Robert when it comes to when to use a UV filter. I have to say i don't even own one for my 77mm lenses, and any that I do own I've acquired quite by accident. I really got a laugh out of stacking fifty filters though! Who would ever even *have* that may UV filters! Some good fun.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/06/2025 09:38:56 AM EST.
