[Hound Tooth]

By the way, the Hoya HD UV filter on my 31mm Limited lens is really beat up and scarred after a year of use. Yet the front element of the lens is still minty fresh flawless. Every time I look at the state of that UV filter, I'm very grateful I bought it. I'd say it's just about time to replace it.

[rparmar]

hmm... $37.50 for an ultra-high quality UV filter with no noticeable degradation in image quality... or walk into sea-water spray with a bare front lens element worth $700+.

"Nothing bad ever happened to me! Therefore everyone should do it too!"

Yeah, great advice. Way to go.

Of course you are offering exactly the same argument you accuse me of doing: what works for you works for everyone. Except you are being more belligerent in proffering your bad advice, hoping that your macho bluster will convince people in place of any sort of argument. I doubt I can teach you any manners but I might offer some actual reasoning.

1. UV filters do indeed show degradation. This has been measured many times. Do some research. Or just think for yourself. "Hmmm, I am adding a new layer of glass the lens designer never counted on, two new surfaces for reflections and a new air gap the lens designer never anticipated. I bet that does nothing at all!"

2. If a filter smashes it might scratch the front element worse than if it wasn't there. This too has happened. Filters get jammed on lenses. Many filters get scratched easier than the actual lens coating. Likewise for fingerprints.

3. People using a filter might be less likely to use a hood, thus compromising IQ and lens safety even further.

4. Care taken in inclement weather protects the lens from most threats. No-one ever suggested being rash.

5. If the situation is extreme you won't be pulling out the camera to shoot anyway, so hood or not it doesn't matter.

6. An "ultra-high quality" filter, say the Heliopan SH-PMC Slim 49mm is $146 at B&H. Hardly a negligible amount.

7. Finally, recall that we are talking about the FA43 Limited. It has a very solid hood and a small front element that is hard to reach.

Buying a high quality lens and then compromising it with a UV filter is naff. If you absolutely have to be using the best lenses in the worst situations then I imagine you are a professional and can budget for replacements.

[Hound Tooth]

1. UV filters do indeed show degradation. This has been measured many times. Do some research. Or just think for yourself. "Hmmm, I am adding a new layer of glass the lens designer never counted on, two new surfaces for reflections and a new air gap the lens designer never anticipated. I bet that does nothing at all!"

Nope, none perceptible at all. I checked thoroughly using my FA 31mm Ltd back when I first got it. The Hoya HD UV filter introduced no loss of contrast or resolution. In some very rare circumstances, there was a slight amount of added flare from things like street lights at night.

This is in stark contrast to the garbage base Tiffen filter I tried on there initially. That one made everything soft.

2. If a filter smashes it might scratch the front element worse than if it wasn't there. This too has happened. Filters get jammed on lenses. Many filters get scratched easier than the actual lens coating. Likewise for fingerprints.

I said high-end filter, not trashy stuff from WalMart. High end filters use hardened glass that is often harder than the front element of a lens. And they use a coating which is just as scratch resistant as Pentax SMC and SPC. Hoya filters are a bit tougher to clean, but B+W filters are actually dead easy to clean, even moreso than the front lens element itself.

People using a filter might be less likely to use a hood, thus compromising IQ and lens safety even further.

That's a baseless generalization. And hoods aren't intended as "protection" anyways.

4. Care taken in inclement weather protects the lens from most threats. No-one ever suggested being rash.

oh is that what you meant by "I've taken lenses into salt-water spray etc. No big deal."? I must've misunderstood. Please enlighten me, where was this "care" you refer to in that statement?

5. If the situation is extreme you won't be pulling out the camera to shoot anyway, so hood or not it doesn't matter.

You realize of course that those are exactly the situations where great picture opportunities present themselves, right?

6. An "ultra-high quality" filter, say the Heliopan SH-PMC Slim 49mm is $146 at B&H. Hardly a negligible amount.

I'm not terribly impressed with that filter. When I tried it out, it offered no better performance than a B+W MRC or a Hoya S-HMC. Not worth the money at all.

A 49mm B+W MRC UV filter is $38.50 at Adorama. A brand new 58mm Hoya HD UV filter on eBay can be found for $43. Perhaps you need to learn how to comparison-shop a little more. Your example is ridiculous.

7. Finally, recall that we are talking about the FA43 Limited. It has a very solid hood and a small front element that is hard to reach.

Very true, but I still see nothing wrong with putting a UV filter on it occasionally when conditions warrant. And when that happens, I'd rather have a high quality UV filter handy than nothing at all.

Buying a high quality lens and then compromising it with a UV filter is naff. If you absolutely have to be using the best lenses in the worst situations then I imagine you are a professional and can budget for replacements.

That's quite the leap of logic. I see these nonsense statements made frequently in this forum. I have a couple of professions, and in each one, I don't needlessly subject my tools to potential harm. Especially if there's a cheap and readily-available way to minimize the chance of damage.

[Raybo]

Of course you are offering exactly the same argument you accuse me of doing: what works for you works for everyone. Except you are being more belligerent in proffering your bad advice, hoping that your macho bluster will convince people in place of any sort of argument. I doubt I can teach you any manners but I might offer some actual reasoning.

1. UV filters do indeed show degradation. This has been measured many times. Do some research. Or just think for yourself. "Hmmm, I am adding a new layer of glass the lens designer never counted on, two new surfaces for reflections and a new air gap the lens designer never anticipated. I bet that does nothing at all!"

2. If a filter smashes it might scratch the front element worse than if it wasn't there. This too has happened. Filters get jammed on lenses. Many filters get scratched easier than the actual lens coating. Likewise for fingerprints.

3. People using a filter might be less likely to use a hood, thus compromising IQ and lens safety even further.

4. Care taken in inclement weather protects the lens from most threats. No-one ever suggested being rash.

5. If the situation is extreme you won't be pulling out the camera to shoot anyway, so hood or not it doesn't matter.

6. An "ultra-high quality" filter, say the Heliopan SH-PMC Slim 49mm is $146 at B&H. Hardly a negligible amount.

7. Finally, recall that we are talking about the FA43 Limited. It has a very solid hood and a small front element that is hard to reach.

Buying a high quality lens and then compromising it with a UV filter is naff. If you absolutely have to be using the best lenses in the worst situations then I imagine you are a professional and can budget for replacements.

Geez Robin..................I have to agree with you again!

[Hound Tooth]

Geez Robin..................I have to agree with you again!

Hey look at that! The two people who made the most incorrect statements in this thread agree with each other!

Woohoo! It's a party!

[Raybo]

Yes, by all means, please only use expensive glass for quaint tea parties with old ladies in wheelchairs and lots of safety padding around. Dirty environments are no place to be taking pictures.

(do I hear a "duh"?)

I have had "cake fingers" from a three year old, guacamole dip, spray from pop and beer along with dust and smoke from from a bon fire on my 43 LTD, it cleaned up fine with some basic knowledge(looks as good as new).

I'd hate to be around you if you are "imaging"

[Raybo]

Hey look at that! The two people who made the most incorrect statements in this thread agree with each other!

Woohoo! It's a party!

You must be a hit at partys............................."don't touch my gear!"

---

Last edited by Raybo; 04-01-2011 at 07:25 PM.

[Hound Tooth]

You must be a hit at partys............................."don't touch my gear!"

Ah yes, clearly you know me well enough by now to be making such observations about my personality at parties. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten the rest of the world as to my favorite food, too?

The new way to discuss things: make baseless assumptions about someone who disagrees with you rather than offer up informed comments.

[Hound Tooth]

I have had "cake fingers" from a three year old, guacamole dip, spray from pop and beer along with dust and smoke from from a bon fire on my 43 LTD, it cleaned up fine with some basic knowledge(looks as good as new).

I'd hate to be around you if you are "imaging"

Then why did you say that we shouldn't be using expensive lenses in situations where it can get dirty? You clearly stated that we should be using cheap lenses in those situations. Are you contradicting yourself? Or is this some ploy to suddenly change sides and agree with someone who has more posts than yourself and happens to disagree with me?

edit: the political intrigue in this forum never ceases to amaze me.

[Raybo]

Shoot enough dogs, children and spraying water, and you'll wish you had a filter on the lens. My favorite is dog drool from exploratory licks.

I've found that the Hoya HD filters generate NO degradation in quality whatsoever, even when doing deep pixel-peeping. However, they're not available in 49mm size (?!?!?!?!?seriously?!?!?!?!? Pentax's parent company doesn't have their best filter in Pentax's most popular thread size?!?!?!?!? WTF?!?!?!?!?).

As a close second, the B+W MRC 101 UV filters (aka 101M) are fantastic too. For the 43mm Limited, the F-Pro mount is fine. No need to spend extra for the XS Pro or Slim mount.

Immediately behind that, the Hoya S-HMC lineup is almost as good, and might even be slightly cheaper. And at least those are available in 49mm size.

Care to share some hi-res images?

[Raybo]

I'm done with you HT, you seem to know better than anyone else on these forums.

I prefer a "naked" lens, it's the way it was intended to be (I never recieved a new lens with any sort of filter installed, have you?)

[Raybo]

Ah yes, clearly you know me well enough by now to be making such observations about my personality at parties. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten the rest of the world as to my favorite food, too?

The new way to discuss things: make baseless assumptions about someone who disagrees with you rather than offer up informed comments.

Ok, one more time.

It's obvious that you are soooo anal about your gear that you probably don't let it leave your sight, you should shoot your images from some sort of a bubble.

[Hound Tooth]

(I never recieved a new lens with any sort of filter installed, have you?)

Sure, some Sigma lenses come with a filter. The really high-end ones.

[Hound Tooth]

It's obvious that you are soooo anal about your gear that you probably don't let it leave your sight, you should shoot your images from some sort of a bubble.

Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. I like to have a UV filter on the front of my expensive lenses, so therefore I'm anal about my gear and don't let it blablablabla so on so forth and all manner of other inanities that make no sense whatsoever.

Yep, brilliant deduction. You've got me pegged to a T. And all because I disagree with you on this one point. You, sir, are an excellent judge of character.

[Raybo]

+1