[séamuis]

I appeal that you reread what you quote me on above. I did not request you to prove something because you attempted to insult me; that comment was made to provide a background or your general tone towards me. It has nothing to do with the UV filter's efficacy.

I took no tone toward you, only to your asinine comment. for which I stand by.

Now on to the quote above. Unfortunately, you're in a better position to prove your case empirically than I to prove mine, as you own a UV filter and I do not. I'm not about to purchase one to win a debate on these forums. You would not have to purchase a thing. However, my argument against UV filters isn't even made from an image quality perspective, it's made from a budgetary and functional angle. If I were to argue from image quality, my argument is based on a maxim that I'm certain everyone will agree with: adding any additional glass between a lens and the subject will always affect the way light is transmitted. Filters may introduce further loss of contrast, hallows, ghosting, and so forth, especially when shooting towards the Sun.

then why even speak as if you know the absolute truth if you do not own one yourself? why ask me to prove one side myself when you cant prove the other side yourself? again I made no (direct) case for the purchase or use ofa UV filter, I merely stated that I know of no evidence to prove that simply using a UV filter will absolutely degrade image quality. yes sure adding additional glass will in fact effect the way light is transmitted, (I already admitted to that) but again this does not prove degradation of image. light loss will occour with or without a filter and the cameras meter will compensate for the filter and the additional light loss that will occur from its use. like loosing light from extending a 1:1 macro, or a bellows for example. no degradation of image from light loss that I am aware of. shooting towards the sun can cause problems without a filter, even on a multi-coated lens. Pentax has put R&D into this before, they created the 'Ghostless' UV filter quite a long time ago. they also developed a 'ghostless' coating that is reported to be used in a number of lenses, including the FA 43mm Limited.

[Marc Langille]

I appeal that you reread what you quote me on above. I did not request you to prove something because you attempted to insult me; that comment was made to provide a background or your general tone towards me. It has nothing to do with the UV filter's efficacy.

Fair enough - can you please you re-read mine? There is no attempt to insult anyone - if you believe that I was, that is certainly not the case. It's (as stated before) a reminder that this forum is to help the beginner's, not to make it an agenda for only one opinion being the right one. Next time I shall quote all the tete-a-tete that was going on so it does not appear that I am directing it only at you. I quoted both yours and Serge's because he clearly approved of your remarks. If I have attempted insult (none intended), then my apologies! I do not believe in insults, implied or otherwise. Negativity has no place for me since it has no value.

In that case, I understand your request and did re-read all of the threads. The OP clearly asked the issue to stop. You did not, neither did Seamuis - therefore both parties could be culpable. I have been in your position too, but did not respond to it: I have been called names on DPR and didn't rise to the bait. I responded in an objective fashion and the attacker recanted. Let me know if you need the posts - I'll gladly provide them.

Now on to the quote above. Unfortunately, you're in a better position to prove your case empirically than I to prove mine, as you own a UV filter and I do not. I'm not about to purchase one to win a debate on these forums. You would not have to purchase a thing. However, my argument against UV filters isn't even made from an image quality perspective, it's made from a budgetary and functional angle. If I were to argue from image quality, my argument is based on a maxim that I'm certain everyone will agree with: adding any additional glass between a lens and the subject will always affect the way light is transmitted.

Well, the drop in filter for the super telephotos that Pentax makes is part of the lens design, just as an FYI. I will not dispute your argument from that perspective. Basically now you are stating it's primarily a budgetary consideration and function, not image quality? I am providing proof of something you requested be judged, yet you made no comment...

Filters may introduce further loss of contrast, hallows, ghosting, and so forth, especially when shooting towards the Sun. More expensive filters, like the B+W I suggested the OP purchase, if they choose to waste their money on filters, will obviously have less impact on the image and suffer to a lesser degree the symptoms I've described above. Cheaper filters will exhibit more of those symptoms and with greater severity. My argument is mainly against the protective aspect of UV/Haze filters. Search the beginner's corner for my specific points against this if you'd like to see what I say. I firmly believe that if a photographer is aiming for a filter-specific image effect, than the trade-offs are worth it. I recently purchased a number of Hoya/Kenko polarizers. However, I'm yet to see any demonstrable effect of blocking UV light at the filter level of the optical system (which consists of the filter, lens, and sensor/film). This is why I asked you to prove the effects you've said are achieved. I've certainly seen many "examples" of a UV/Haze filter effect on the packaging, more more often than not, it's two identical photos, of one which has been manipulated in Photoshop to look more contrasty.

OK, fair points and again I never said that I endorsed the use of filters. I stated they work for me - it's for protection. I often work in less than ideal conditions - dust, sand, wind, etc. The filter is on the lens for protection against those elements and I would hope my images above proved that it's not degrading image. Now, you have not commented on the image quality with a UV filter installed - you explained yourself as simply responding to the context of my OP and that is fair. Once again, my needs are specific and I'm not endorsing it to everyone.

Otherwise, you and a number of others seem to be overly hostile towards me and my opinions. I sincerely apologize for not sugar-coating them and making them more palatable, but life isn't always like that.

Pavel, honestly you are nowhere near the truth. It's not about being hostile towards you, my OP was a reminder about being civil in your replies. For reference here is Seamuis' post and then yours:

there is no evidence that I am aware of that even suggests that a modern multi-coated filter will 'degrade' image quality. we are talking about top grade optical glass (the same type, even made by the same manufacturers as lens glass elements) with multi-coatings just as good as the lens'. could it cause light loss? yes, presumably some, but in the case of a UV, a multi coated UV at that, it will be virtually zero. for protection in dusty or otherwise harsh environments (a beach would come to mind) it would be a wise investment. but the coatings on modern lenses are tough. seriously tough. particularly the current Pentax SMC with SP (super-protect) coating. purchasing a multi-coated UV (such as a Hoya HMC, B+W or Tiffen) would be a good thing to have, but its in no way necessary. of course if you never want to have to clean your front lens element, or have a thing about keeping your equipment in as close to mint condition as possible, then I would suggest a filter, yes. otherwise, no. there is no real need.

Pro-UV filter arguments get on my nerves. And just because of that, I'm recanting my advice. Do me a favour, waste your money and purchase a UV filter... or twenty, make sure to get the most expensive B+W ones too.

So what is wrong with being civil to someone? Again, my comment about agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that is the key here.

BTW, you were very direct and sarcastic in your remarks to Seamuis' request for proof - that started the ball rolling downhill. Just because I am direct in my communication like yourself doesn't mean I am hostile.

Additionally, to the administrators who are "closely" monitoring what I write: I'm more receptive of warnings sent directly to me. Thank you.

I've sent you a PM...

Sincerely,
Marc

[dcmsox2004]

since b+w is considered to be one of the oldest and well respected companies... i offer this
information..... and yes, they are a for profit entity, that notwithstanding... their reputation is rock solid...
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/pdf/B+WHandbook56_65.pdf

[Duck Dodgers]

since b+w is considered to be one of the oldest and well respected companies... i offer this
information..... and yes, they are a for profit entity, that notwithstanding... their reputation is rock solid...
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/pdf/B+WHandbook56_65.pdf

...And yet, they didn't fare as well as Hoya in this spectrophotometer comparison:

UV filters test - Lenstip.com

My take is that years ago, UV filters offered the transparency film (slide) shooter a real advantage, especially when shooting in open shade. Slide film's sensitivity to UV caused many such shots to have a bluish overcast. Today, I never use filters of any sort except for one-off special-effects work. I buy Pentax lenses (mostly) for their color rendition; why would I want to alter that? But, YMMV.