On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:47:50 -0800 (PST), bigrocketman3@webtv.net (Steve McDonald) wrote:

> Taking a camcorder anywhere without a UV or other type of filter
>attached, is like having unprotected sex. Sooner or later, you will
>find out the hard way why you needed it, if you don't keep one on at all
>times. Better to scratch a $15. filter, than to spend $400. and up for
>a new lens. The small, non-removable lenses are not regarded as
>repairable if the outer glass is damaged-----they just replace them with
>entire new ones.
>
> Ultra-Violet/Haze filters can give a slight optical advantage when
>taking long shots across a smoky or foggy area. Residents of the LA
>Basin take note of this. Also, at high elevations or in equatorial
>zones, they may reduce optical aberrations caused by high levels of UV
>light. Perhaps those in Oceana, under the ozone hole, might benefit
>more in this regard??
>
>Steve McDonald

I've always had my doubts about the advantages of using
a UV filter for anything but lens protection (important).
We have "soupy" atmospheric conditions often here in the
summer, and a UV filter does nothing good/bad to the image.
I often shoot miles across a large lake, or from one hill
to another, and there is no affect on the image. I also
often shoot skies, with no visible difference. This may
be due to the fact that almost any glass (as in, the
material those many lens elements are made of...) will
stop much of the UV before it gets to the CCDs or film...