UV filters?

[The View]

Sounds like you were being served up a heapin' helpin' of salesman-BS.

Light in front of a filter is just, ah, light in front of a filter, regardless of what happens to the photons after they traverse the rear lens element.

I keep filters on all my lenses. I've used nothing but B+W filters. I can't tell any difference with them on vs. with them off, in a variety of lighting conditions. Just my personal ad hoc testing. I make no scientific claims.

I do know that I've destroyed two filters--one from a near-freak incident (struck by flying rock), the other from blowing sand (where most of us would have agreed on the need for a filter, regardless of our "normal" practice.) So I'm a believer.

I doubt Nikon or Contax would give me a new front lens element for $77!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly my experience.

B + W are of such great quality, that I want to see that BS test that proves it makes a difference on/off.

Plus: for certain lenses it is mandatory to have an UV filter on, or they suck in dust.

[mafueal]

Have you ever put a Tiffen on a white sheet of paper? That yellowish smear.
overed by a filter.

I'm no expert, but I read somewhere that fluorescence was used to whiten some materials like paper and some fabrics which are somewhat yellowish. Some aditives can absorb UV light and reflect it as blue light, which mixed with the natural yellow tone gives a more luminous white. So, if you put a UV filter on a sheet of paper shouldn't it always give a more yellowish tone?

By the way, I don't use UV filters except in extreme conditions.

[DarkPenguin]

I've wondered the same thing about prints put under uv glass.

As an aside there was a long UV filter thread at DPreview.  Thom Hogan's thots on the subject (well, not all of them) http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29150755