@RJ: Yup, you're right: lens caps protect, and mine dangles off my camera on a leash (I tend to lose 'em if I put them in my shirt pocket or elsewhere; this trick prevents that). But — maybe I'm paranoid, but I just get really nervous with the idea of an unprotected lens, when I'm bouncing around football stadiums trying to get shots of the players or the band on the sidelines. Your description of the Costco cloths sounded good at first, but then you say they collect all sorts of little gritties? What about that Zeiss lens protection kit?

@BT: Wow! That's some setup! I see similar ones, clusters, armies of photogs at the UCLA games, all wrestling with their giant zooms and monopods. I am in awe of how they've learned to control these behemoths! I'm of the same mind as John Isaac: the Olympus system provides the same quality pix, but without all the extra weight and cumbersomeness. (I wish to God I'd never sold my Oly C2100 -- which has virtually become a cult classic by now). The ONLY thing "wrong" with it was the 2.1MP sensor. Now I have an Oly E-510 with a zoom that goes to (FOV 2x/35mm) 360mm. In October, Olympus is going to release a zoom that goes to (FOV 2x/35mm) 600mm. And I'll be able to use it sans tripod because of the combination of image stabilization and lighter weight. You guys with the Canons and the Nikons really work for your money, and I say that with respect! But I think Olympus has something in the idea of lighter-weight equipment. (The Isaac review of the E-510 was a for me a really gratifying eye-opener!)

@DR: Back to the UV filter: I have never noticed any problem with either exposure or color rendition using one. I have run afoul of flare at times (just recently too, on two shoots), even with the filter immaculately clean. But when I get into a situation where there's mud and water flying, as with the other day, I'm glad I have it on. I don't use them inside though, although I will, as often as not, forget to remove it for inside use.

Cheers to all,

Leonard