Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mikew_RIP" data-source="post: 168192" data-attributes="member: 14174">Been my guiding principle to never take a lens outside without a uv or similar filter in place,in the 35mm days it served two purposes but with digital only one to protect the front element.There are two exeptions to the previous statement, my 105 sigma as the front element is set well back and if i dont use a filter i dont need the lens hood,the other was when i bought my D70 new with a 24-85 lens,the shop couldn't get me a filter until the next day so took it out to try without a filter.Guess what something got on the front element and damaged the coating,no idea what it was but had to live with it instead of being able to replace a filter.I am not in the fortunate position of being able to replace a lens without much thought to the cost,a filter is another matter it may degrade the image or not, i have no idea but will accept it does to some extent and to be honest i dont care, its not a £3000 2.8 lens its just the best i can afford and i want it to stay like that.In the end you have to make your own mind up i just wonder if you took&nbsp; 50 images off this site who would know which had a uv filter and which didn't.mike</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mikew_RIP, post: 168192, member: 14174"] Been my guiding principle to never take a lens outside without a uv or similar filter in place,in the 35mm days it served two purposes but with digital only one to protect the front element.There are two exeptions to the previous statement, my 105 sigma as the front element is set well back and if i dont use a filter i dont need the lens hood,the other was when i bought my D70 new with a 24-85 lens,the shop couldn't get me a filter until the next day so took it out to try without a filter.Guess what something got on the front element and damaged the coating,no idea what it was but had to live with it instead of being able to replace a filter. I am not in the fortunate position of being able to replace a lens without much thought to the cost,a filter is another matter it may degrade the image or not, i have no idea but will accept it does to some extent and to be honest i dont care, its not a £3000 2.8 lens its just the best i can afford and i want it to stay like that. In the end you have to make your own mind up i just wonder if you took 50 images off this site who would know which had a uv filter and which didn't. mike [/QUOTE]

Verification