Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Geoff Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital Subject: Re: DSLR and Mirrorless - Filter ? Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:01:19 +1200 Organization: Dis Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <7n5vO.397436$ZhK.76089@fx14.iad> Reply-To: geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 00:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2a51755b7c11ce15feb75857a8d5c68"; logging-data="662734"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dFXKW+Ho3rqoc49TMniXW55XBx2xRo5Q=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:EH6HhqjfcSENKkqn/u0qLq1kdoA= In-Reply-To: <7n5vO.397436$ZhK.76089@fx14.iad> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 1851 On 15/08/2024 4:58 am, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2024-08-12 23:00, 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 ? > > I suggest you look at what UV filter is in front of the sensor on your > camera.  It's probably more than adequate for the UV purpose. > > Depending on the lens, I use ND 0 filters for protection or no filter at > all.  High end B+W filters often have thin bezels (but may not be > stackable). > > (For the avoidance of confusion, B+W is a brand). > Bowers & Wilkins :-) (ha ha) geoff