Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!mauney
From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: don't use filters to protect lenses
Message-ID: <2674@ncsu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Aug-84 09:34:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncsu.2674
Posted: Thu Aug 30 09:34:35 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Sep-84 10:58:32 EDT
Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh
Lines: 22

This is a rebuttal to decwrl!(what is hip?)'s comments on filters.

First, there is no need to apologize for being a Leica fanatic --
that's a well-respected sub-hobby in photography.  One should be
aware, though, that not everyone can justify the expense of Leitz
products,  and that information published by Leitz cannot 
be expected to apply to popularly-priced Japanese products;  the
fact that all R-series Leica lenses contain UV absorbing glass does
not tell me anything about my Vivitar zoom.  The extreme lighting
conditions mentioned are also infrequently encountered by the average
camera user.  Optical degradation from a *good quality* filter will
probably be undetectable in most cases.

There is no point trying to enumerate the minor hazards that endanger
the front element of a lens.  I prefer to transfer those hazards to
a filter that is easier to clean and easier to replace than the lens
is.  I look at it as insurance payed with one easy premium.
-- 

_Doctor_                           Jon Mauney,    mcnc!ncsu!mauney
\__Mu__/                           North Carolina State University