#11
|
|||
|
|||
You're right Gabriel, probably is a bit of a generalisation, however the point I was trying to make is that you at least put something in front of the actual lense!
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Has never affected the shots i have taken. sold lots as well. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I have found that my shots are clearer without the filter in front of the lens. However I use a $300 Sigma 70-300mm Macro so its not exactly L Glass. If something ever did happen to the lens $300 is nothing to cry over.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
To use or not to use, that is the question??
For aviation photography I think it pays to have the filter on the lens. I'd say if you were a pro photog and you were doing studio work and the like, then I wouldn't bother. I do however remove the filter on occasions when shooting into the sun. Nothing worse than filter reflections all over the shot! While in Sydney a few years back, I had a cheapy lens ($300) and I dropped the whole body and lens. Completely smashed the filter on the front, but not a single piece of damage or scratch on the camera or lens. I was glad to have paid for the replacement filter and the $30 charge for removing the old smashed and twisted filter! Sure beats paying money that you don't have to fork out for nothing! So, I guess it comes down to personal choice. Can you see the effects of having the filter on the front or not? I personally like the little piece of insurance sitting on the front of the lens, albeit sometimes 10% of the lens price! David.M.
__________________
E&OE |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Even a good quality UV filter is less than the cost of a lens...
__________________
My Jetphotos Click Clicks Whens the BBQ in Brisvegas Muzzdog?? Soon.. No where. Where should I go? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Still looking for that photo I took of the filter afterwards, was a mess. Total classic.
__________________
YSSY Forum Administrator |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
If we have insurance for our cameras why are we so worried about damaging a lens?
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps not all people have insurance...
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Please do tell us what your excess is to make a claim on your camera Nick. If it's more than $60 wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy a UV filter??
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Excess is $100. And for that I could claim the camera plus both lenses. If a UV filter means the same quality shots for you that's fine but for me it seems to make a difference so that's why I don'y use one.
|
|
|