In photography circles, there's something of an eternal, low-level debate over the value of attaching UV filters to lenses. Such filters are marketed as improving image quality by eliminating UV haze from photos, but I don't know of anyone who uses them for this reason. Instead, they're used as a transparent shield to protect the exposed glass element of the (expensive) lens. Those who disdain UV filters claim they negatively affect image quality and that protection is unnecessary with proper care and behavior.
Over the weekend I took the camera out at night to play around with some long-exposure night shots. After an hour of trying--all my shots were pretty much washed-out blue because of the fairly intense light pollution my neighborhood boasts--I packed up and headed in. Only I apparently didn't buckle the camera bag properly in the dark. As I'm opening the front door, the 75-300mm telephoto drops out of the open bag with a sickening whack on the concrete front porch. Now, the 75-300 isn't a high-quality telephoto zoom lens. It's not even that expensive as such things go. But it is the only long-range zoom I have and there isn't any money budgeted for a replacement. I did not greet this event with great joy.
So I picked up the lens, fearing what I might find. The UV filter was shattered most spectacularly--the lens had fallen almost straight down onto it. But the underlying lens was unscathed. Only a small scuff mark on one side. I popped it on the camera and took some test shots--autofocus, zoom and everything else seemed to check out fine. Bullet dodged.
But I will be purchasing a new UV filter for it. Count me among the true believers.
Now Playing: Antonin Dvorák The Best of Dvorák
No comments:
Post a Comment