[rawr]

Why ?

Just joking around, of course. Too many good lenses have their IQ spoilt by crappy filters.
I was trying to be ironic.

[Schraubstock]

Just joking around, of course. Too many good lenses have their IQ spoilt by crappy filters.
I was trying to be ironic.

I see, my irony meter needs calibration

Greetings

[peos99]

I bought this one, was that not a good one?

WEBHALLEN.com - Hoya Filter UV HMC 67mm

[rawr]

The Hoya is good:



But I'd still only use a hood. Unless you were in an environment where a UV filter actually did anything useful (eg the beach or something). But some folks love their UV filters.

[Schraubstock]

where a UV filter actually did anything useful (eg the beach or something

You are on the right track and good to see, by way of your sample pics, what a filter will/can do to your images.

I must respectfully disagree with you relating to the beach warning though. I have been exposing my lenses to the elements for more than 40 years and in those forty years the elements ranged from pleasant to diabolical. And I have to tell you I have never ever yet put a scratch or blemish on ant of my glass. I only use a hood and this gives me all the protection I need.

People have this diabolical fear of lens damage. If you follow this logic every spectacle wearer (I am one of them) would walk around with protective goggles over them every day. After all good eye glasses are also very expensive. When they finally show some scratches you will find they got there most likely through inappropriate cleaning.

Then there is this constant warning by so-called people in the know that beaches are posing a particular danger. The sand blasting scare is a particular "plausible" danger which is always cited.

Again when there is a sandblasting kind of storm at a beach and I have been on it, I walk away without translucent eye wear. There will and could be salt deposit on the lenses but they are easily removed without leaving damage. So why should this be any different with photographic lenses ? Very early legacy lenses may have had some soft glass in them, and I have some, but even here I have to report - no damage.

Late April early August I was in Ireland and I traveled to a place called Inch Beach at the Dingle Peninsula. This is where the film "Ryans Daughter" was filmed. The day I got there was one of those really stormy days. The wind at the beach was so strong that big sand drifts were building up around the nearby buildings facing the beach. Sand was flying everywhere. I took my K-5 with the Pentax 60-250mm for a walk on the beach. I walked up the beach for about half an hour, It was terrible, sand flying in my face and was hurting. My camera at the end of my arm totally unprotected. I took a few shots but nothing turned out much because the condition where just terrible. Nothing much one could frame, except sand in the air.

You know what ? No damage to the lens glass ! Now before you say, the 60-250 has extra protect coating, I went back to the car and changed to my trusty old Tamron 24-135 and went back for another excursion on the beach. No difference, no damage !

I also know though, some people cannot (or don't want to) be convinced. For those people, if it makes you feel better/safer then do what you must. I only want to point out, a UV filter has no use on today's DSLR. (Opinion based on my provable experience)

Greetings

[rawr]

I must respectfully disagree with you relating to the beach warning though.

I agree with you 100%. I hate UV filters and never use them myself, even at the beach. I am a hood user, not a UV filter user.

I just mentioned here how they may sometimes be useful because I was once chastised by some dude in the lens area of this forum for being too emphatic about UV filters being unnecessary.