Hi Guest!
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Share this page
Offline
Never saw him before. Thanks for the link. He makes some really good points.
His take on most things rings true, for sure. But I will take his UV filter suggestion to task tho: My (in his words) genre with photography comes from a documentary angle, I'd rather be stomping around "out there" with a UV filter on my gla$$ than have it exposed to all sorts of contamination. I can wipe a UV filter with my shirt-tail and not care if it gets scarred a bit. To me they're a sacrifice piece. And you've seen my opinion about lenscaps... I've a very extensive collection in drawer bottoms.
His take on most things rings true, for sure. But I will take his UV filter suggestion to task tho: My (in his words) genre with photography comes from a documentary angle, I'd rather be stomping around "out there" with a UV filter on my gla$$ than have it exposed to all sorts of contamination. I can wipe a UV filter with my shirt-tail and not care if it gets scarred a bit. To me they're a sacrifice piece. And you've seen my opinion about lenscaps... I've a very extensive collection in drawer bottoms.
OP
Offline
Listen to his disclaimer staring at around 1:32. His advice isn't right in all situations for all people. As for UV filters, I used to swear by them, but have had a change of heart the more I shot landscapes and wild life. For me, whether I use a "protective" filter is situational, not that I never use them. When I pay a couple grand for a lens, it's because the glass is great with great sharpness, so most of the time I will simply use the lens hood when I'm walking around.
However, if I'm shooting in an environment where there may be flying debris, or splashes, etc., then I may attach a protective filter, but as a general rule I don't.
Of course you probably know this, but the subject of using protective filters vs not is one of the more hotly contested subjects on most photography forums I've been on (and a lot of passion on both sides of the issue). I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned your genre of photography being documentary. If I was a war time photographer or otherwise a "run and gun" type of photographer, I probably would use a protective filter in those situations as I'm trying to capture the moment, not create a piece of art to hang on the wall. But for me, most of my shooting is planned and often on a tripod so I prefer not having anything but that nice glass between my subject and the sensor. I've seen every argument there is both for and against the use of filters and have concluded that it really just comes down to personal preference and whatever makes one comfortable. Personally I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, just different opinions.
Offline
Yes, I did hear and understand his statement. But again, my usual shooting environs are (or were) in conditions where optics could/would be subjected to abuse. No argument from me that putting anything between subject and the glass is compromise, it just happens that in my case it's "better to have it and not need it" etc. Landscape, tripod mounted work is a different animal. With this 80-400mm, it's most likely the only filter on it would be a polarizer and the whole rig on sticks or monopod.