Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ejronin" data-source="post: 625882" data-attributes="member: 43743">And here's always sort of been my thing about it:Let's say you've got a $4000 Zeiss Optus, right? Accidents happen (which is why we don't call them "on-purposes"). Even the most expensive filter in his testing line up could be argued to lessen the chance of murder-indilucing rage over accidentally scratching the lens or having caustic elements erode the coating. But let's be real here. Either we baby the lens or we don't. I seem to notice a huge hypocrisy in logic, sometimes. Oh, additional glass in front of the lens manipulates the quality of image. Sure, maybe by the nth degree. But, at the same time, we hear, "sharpness isn't the most important part of an image, there's contrast and...other stuff." Great, so a slightly softer image or doing a tiny bit more work to clear up other faults may happen. That's a totally valid and subjective stance people can take.Sure. Is a $250 filter protecting even a 1700 lens a good idea? Let's pretend, no. What do we think of photos taken with SLR lenses on DSLR? the quality wouldn't feasibly be worse, right?Ok. Will the $250 filter devalue the potential sale of an image equal to or more than the retail value of the filter? Will it do more harm in the long run  I to excessively clean the lens in time and material than a filter? What I usually conclude, is whether or not I want to allow the subjective views of other artists dictate the level of comfort or effort I'm willing to out forth. If someone wants to feel more comfortable with a filter, I'm not going to point an laugh nor would I think much of they didn't. Sometimes I have one (like at the beach) and sometimes I don't (like in my living room). Why? Because comfort (that and I don't own a lens over $500, not that I want to throw it like a football).Interesting article. Sent from my SM-S906L using Tapatalk</blockquote>

Verification