In CA, with all the UV, I put 81A on short lenses and 81B on long lenses shooting Kodachrome. ________________________________ From: Koichi Mac <nikonf3tmd4@xxxxxxx> To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sun, November 21, 2010 2:58:01 AM Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Protection filter questions? Yea, I never cared for Skylight anyway. During my infancy period on photography, I didn't know any better and Skylight was what was most common filters sold, so I had it on for many years. Not knowing any better also meant negative film was all I knew, and I was using B&W mostly, and there was no point of reference to compare color rendition. After knowing more, that was the first thing I ditched. Koichi Yasutani - a.k.a. Steve + MP Lakewood, WA U.S.A. 2010 / 11 / 20 23:58 PST On Nov 20, 2010, at 1933 , Eric Welch wrote: > Skylight filters are useless since lens makers started including UV > filtration >in the glue between elements. Another Leica innovation. > > > On Nov 20, 2010, at 6:18 PM, Koichi Mac <nikonf3tmd4@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I have filters on most of my lenses. Personally I care neither UV nor >>Skylight, but many of them are UV. Canon has blank glass and that's in my EF >>28-70/2.8. >> >> >> Coatings can be a problem in cleaning up. I have one Nikon 77mm UV >> that's >>got coatings messed up. Maybe I should razor blade to peel it off. >> >> On Nov 18, 2010, at 1757 , John Osthus wrote: >> >>> Do you folks use a UV or skylight filter to protect your lenses? >>> >>> I actually had a filter take the damage from a short drop once. The filter >>>broke but the lens was OK. >>> >>> How about coatings vs. non coating for a 77mm skylight filter? >>> >>> I have a Hoya HMC super multi coated uv0 on my 24-70. >>> >>> I have a new 28-300 Nikon – I found a un coated 77mm tiffen “haze” filter. >>> OK >>>to use that on the 28-300 or am I better off spending another $50 or so for >>>a >>>multicoated? >>> >>> Curous about your thoughts… >> >> >