On Sun, 22 Nov 1998 08:34:22 -0500, richin wrote:
>JEPPA567 wrote:

>> i am going to purchase a nikon 60mm 2.8 macro lens.
>> is a UV filter necessary?
>> is there a special type or brand i should use?

>I think so. I was foolish enough to use just a polarizer while
>in the Canadian Rockies and my shots seemed washed out. I
>suspect thatuv also exposes film but in a uniform fashion
>causing less than vibrant colors.
>I am just guessing at this, from the above results, and if
>anyone else has better input, than I also would like to know
>hear about it.

(Well, it does seem that I have blabbed over-much on this
topic, but who reads about it, anyway...? ;-)
OK, here it is again: virtually all UV is blocked by
the lens! If you don't believe it, shoot two identical
frames (shot identically...) on slide film, one without
and one with a good UV filter (under the worst UV-conditions
you can find...). Tell us the result. And, while you're at
it, tell us if you can find ANY degradation of the image
quality from using the UV filter... (this comes up a lot,
also! ;-). The UV filter DOES have a use, though: lens
front-element protection, for which I have been grateful
on a few occasions...;-). BTW, I consider metal-rimmed
Hoya filters sufficiently good for even the best lenses,
inexpensive as Hoya filters are (no need for the
high-priced versions or brands, except possibly in
special-case conditions...). As to your overexposure
(for slides), some modern meters are annoyingly set up
in a non-linear way to keep you from under-exposing
beach and snow scenes - but this can cause overexposure
of high-mountain scenes. I prefer a camera with manual
exposure and a good, linear, center-weighted meter
(with no "roll-'o'-th'-dice" multi-patch computer
over-riding "matrix metering" non-sense...;-).
If you shot print film, I would have a talk with the
printer... If your filters and/or lenses are smudged,
I would have a talk with yourself...;-)