Hi--

>Ok, you convinced me. I'll reconsider my thinking on this matter. I've read
>several positions on this and came to my conclussions based upon rational
>thought. You make some good points and I'll think on this again. Thank you
>for the patience to talk with me and explain with out hostility. That is a
>rarity on the net. Thanks again :)
Robert Kirkman

Hmmm, I thought I was being rather more hostile than usual, since I
don't like Untested Suppositions Passing For Fact, and people are pretty
free with their u.t.p.f.f.'s on the 'net...;-). So I try to counter with
more solid stuff, when possible... In theory, any added optic will degrade performance, but if you look at it as a systems thing, it looks different.
One starts with an imperfect optic, imaged to film. The interaction means
the resultant shifts in resolution from changing either the lens or film
performance does not result in the same amplitude of shift in the final
image quality - the shift is always less (often by about half - as in
cutting in half [or doubling] the resolution of either the film or lens
results in an on-film resolution loss [or gain] of maybe only a quarter
of the resolution) - so the miniscule loss introduced by a good filter
is reduced to the point that VERY minor focus errors will be more important
to final resolution than the filter (also, VERY small resolution changes
are, for practical purposes, undetectable, the medium being what it is).
So, you're welcome! Glad you didn't just stamp your feet and run off
in anger, as a few folks do when presented with an opposing view...;-)
David Ruether