Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Abandoned Trolley <fred@fred-smith.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: DSLR and Mirrorless - Filter ?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:26:44 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <v9f1rk$3pho0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v9ei8e$3n3r1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:26:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0365e328bae2cc854f79c47d0ca61ee0";
	logging-data="3983104"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+eDgmtfo2gMgYlqfDZTzf9WKV2NHyztHvVoU2NxerQUA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z0n5MUj/LHx0hKDwmbvl9S0byvU=
In-Reply-To: <v9ei8e$3n3r1$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 1561

On 13/08/2024 04:00, Geoff wrote:
> Certainly a protection against particulates onto the front element, but 
> is a UV (or whatever) filter of any optical benefit these days ?
> 
> Or a potential liability with essentially an additional element, and 
> potential flare from the surface being closer to the front of a lens-hood ?
> 
> geoff


Or maybe consider the lens hood as a bit of a liability ?

I owned at least one telephoto lens which suffered from vignetting 
caused by the supplied lens hood