NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Other => Topic started by: MEPER on May 02, 2020, 09:59:03
-
I nearly always put a filter on my lenses to keep the front lens "virgin". I have always used UV-filters. Reason is that it may remove some "haze" knowing that an UV filter may take a very small amount of information. So it has been a psychological "thing" that is difficult for me to just put a expensive clear glass in front without any "real" effect.
I was looking at B+W homepage to see what they say about the topic.
There is an example a bit down the page that shows effect of no-filter vs uv-filter. I assume that it is on digital camera otherwise it will be strange to show film examples in 2020.
https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/vorlage/uv-clear
Don't think they sell their clear filters very well?
It of course depends of which image you like best but I am on the "uv-side". I did not expect this quite large effect on digital. But it will keep me using uv instead of clear.
-
In general, try to avoid putting filters on your lens. They will degrade the image no matter what the maker claims. Plus, if you accidentally drop your lens to the ground, a worst-case scenario is your filter breaks and peppers the front element with glass shards making it look like a porcupine. Actually, this has happened to me (ruining a brand new 35/1.4) thus was the last time I used filter for "protection". A lens hood is far superior.
However, there are a few specific situations in which using clear-glass filters is advisable. For example when you can get sea spray or rain on the front element, as wiping off a flat surface is much easier than with a curved front element. ND filters or polarisers have their legitimate fields of application as well.
As to "protecting" the lens/camera from UV, this is a pipe dream as modern camera systems are for all practical purposes blind to UV on their own. Maybe if you are scaling Mount Everest the UV levels are high enough to get through, but then UV would be your least concern any way.
-
I haven't noticed any image degradation caused by a protection filter, so long as I shot closer (not closeups) and mid-range distances.
On the other hand, even a quality filter will cause surprisingly noticeable image degradation when shooting at distant scenes. Until I noticed it, I had thought my lens or the AF of my camera had been in trouble.
I haven't used clear filters of any quality grade since I noticed that, except for the cases Birna mentions.
-
So you think the image comparation on B+W homepage where there is a clear difference is more a marketing "thing"?
The best would be to try it out to see by "own eye" if there is a difference. I have seen examples of cheap filter what they do of "damage" to the image. Until now I have filters on most lenses I bring out for shooting.
It is just when I get a new lens and take the cap of first time the front lens looks so "virgin" that my mind says…..it needs to be protected and never be wiped. To clean a front lens is also something that has to be learned to do it right. The good thing is that Nikon coatings seems to be very hard. My old AF 300/2.8D has a "built-in" protection front glass…...as far as I remember.
When I look at a 2nd hand lens I like when I can see that the seller has a filter on.....but that is another story.
-
If the lens is bought second-hand with filter, then just unscrew that filter ...
If one intends to shoot UV, there is a steep learning curve as to how comprehensive modification of the camera is required. Plus finding a lens that transmits enough UV -- not easy. On our 'sister site' https://ultravioletphotography.com, voluminous posts and discussions pertain to these topics.
The reason long lenses often have a protective glass element first is they tend to use ED glass up front and it is softer thus more prone of scratching. A flat, or in some cases meniscus, glass is a cheap insurance against front element damage. In particular for hard use by 'pros' who often stand the lens on its front.
-
The comparison images posted on the B+W website shows the effect of the UV-cut filter. The distant scene will look crisper when the haze is removed. I would guess that the positive effect of the haze removal happened to be more prominent than the negative optical effect of the filter. I would even suspect that the sample images were shot on films.
Also, I would doubt if the haze is as influential on the sensors as on the films, because the UV portion is efficiently filtered by the UV/IR-cut filter in front of the sensor.
-
I have asked if it is a true example and if it is digital or film.
And yes, with uv-filter I mean "uv-cut" …..like a Nikon L37c filter.
Nikon has always been very "technical". They write the cut wavelength on the filters like L37 (370 nm), L39, R60 etc......I like that.
-
So far as I'm aware, neither Nikon, Kenko/Hoya or Marumi offers UV-cut or skylight filters in their highest-end lineups (like ARCREST, Zeta or EXUS series). No UV-cut or skylight filters have been newly released from these manufacturers in the digital era.
I think that indicates cutting UV for the digital camera is redundant.
-
It is difficult with Hoya as they makes really many series of filters. The last one I got was an UV-filter from the HD-serie. Branded as a Digital filter. My impression was that it was a "top serie" filter but everybody seems to write "nano" on their top filters.....so maybe it is not :-)
-
I use protection filters on my lenses, mostly Hoya! But Nikon market their own Protection Filters and or UV filters!
-
A "protection" filter on a lens can be your worst enemy ....
For true protection, use lens hoods.
-
There is a bit about it in this video. Filters seems to break more easily than the front element. What I don't understand in the test is that there is no marks on the front element of lens after the violent treatment in first part of test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds
-
The image on the B+W website looks like they took the same original shot, made 2 copies, and just upped the contrast in post on one of them.
I've personally never seen any clarifying effect from the so-called UV filters,either in the film or digital eras.
I have sometimes seen the dingy, pale yellowish color from UV filters contaminating my photos.
I have the B+W 007 or Nikon NC filters available for all lenses for use when needed.
-
I am in total agreement with Birna: Get rid of those "protective" filters and buy (and use!) a lens hood at all times instead.
The two exceptions: when you need a polarizer to control reflections; and using a clear protective filter might be a sensible precaution if you are photographing in a sandstorm.
-
Plus, if you accidentally drop your lens to the ground, a worst-case scenario is your filter breaks and peppers the front element with glass shards making it look like a porcupine. Actually, this has happened to me (ruining a brand new 35/1.4) thus was the last time I used filter for "protection". A lens hood is far superior.
The one time I dropped a camera a significant distance the shards from the broken filter were a problem. The camera was an F100 (if I recall correctly) with the 28-105 Nikkor zoom. I dropped the camera about 1 meter onto a somewhat bare spot in a lawn, so the surface was softer than pavement but still not very yielding. The camera fell lens-first so the front of the lens hit first. Initially I thought it was good that the filter took the took the brunt of the impact, leaving the lens seemingly undamaged. However, small particles of glass from the destroyed filter got into the lens at the time of the impact, resulting in a grinding sound and feeling when the focus ring was turned. I had to send the lens in for repairs.
-
Maybe there is a market for "hard rubber" lens hoods that can take the shock if a camera is dropped and the lens hits first.
-
Many years ago, I bought a second hand 18-70DX. I was unsatisfied with it the first few weeks. I found the images soft and fuzzy, lacking in fine detail. But when I removed the filter that came with it, it was suddenly crisp and sharp. The filter was of a known brand, but probably not expensive. Since then i have not used filters unless for spesific tasks.
Put on the lens hood, and you are ready for work.
-
I've broken a lot more filters than front elements and do everything possible to avoid using a hood. (it does sometime work.)
But in all honesty, anything, any kind of glass will impair.
Thanks,
I needed a smile,
S.
-
Commentary on UV filters on digital cameras: Diglloyd (https://diglloyd.com/blog/2020/20200502_2018-MaxMax-Ultraviolet-filters-vs-sensor-cutoff.html). Summary is that common UV-cut filters won't make a practical difference in suppressing UV. This is because the filter stack on the sensor cuts out light up to longer wavelengths (far visible range) than the external filter will.
-
I asked "B+W" about the topic and also about stacking a pol-filter on the UV-filter. In the B+W link which shows the difference between UV-filter and none (which is probably from the film days) the picture above shows a pol-filter on top of an UV or clear filter. Something I never do so asked about it. This was the answer:
"the effect of a UV Filter and a Clear Filter compared on a Digital Sensor to Film is very small. It really does not matter if you use a clear or a UV. But there is no problem to put your Polarizer on top of your UV as long as you use B+W Filters. We have the highest Transmission because of the special glas and the MRC Nano coating."
-
I asked "B+W" about the topic and also about stacking a pol-filter on the UV-filter. In the B+W link which shows the difference between UV-filter and none (which is probably from the film days) the picture above shows a pol-filter on top of an UV or clear filter. Something I never do so asked about it. This was the answer:
"the effect of a UV Filter and a Clear Filter compared on a Digital Sensor to Film is very small. It really does not matter if you use a clear or a UV. But there is no problem to put your Polarizer on top of your UV as long as you use B+W Filters. We have the highest Transmission because of the special glas and the MRC Nano coating."
I would mot expect B+W to say anything negative about using their filters, which would not increase their sales.
-
That is right so answer is expected but still interesting to get their view.
My own main reason for using UV/clear filter is not so much for "knock protecting" of front element but more for never (or very rarely) need cleaning of the font element and when it is necessary it can be done in controlled environment.
-
My own main reason for using UV/clear filter is not so much for "knock protecting" of front element but more for never (or very rarely) need cleaning of the font element and when it is necessary it can be done in controlled environment.
Exactly. If I have to clean the front optical surface with a cloth potentially contaminated with invisible blow sand particles, better it be a filter than the front element of a lens.
-
Just to clarify, I use front filters because lens caps are a cumbersome. Dump the uncapped lens back in the bag, switch lens, get the shot.
What kind of sack do you use to schlep your 70-200/Vr/X/FL with that ridiculous hood attached?
Golf club bag?
-
It is easy to envision the non-hooded lens gets its "protective" filter cracked in that bag ... Repair facilities know this all too well. I have yet to see a ridiculous lens hood. OK a few exceptions like the factory hood for the AFS 200/2 come to mind. However, the lens itself performs admirably with a 300/2.8 hood on it.
A hood is a lens' best friend.
-
In my early days of film I used to put UV filters on my lenses for protection. However I found that I was constantly swapping them out for my polariser, which was inconvenient in the field. Extra handling of filters near the front element also increases the risk of putting your finger on the lens or filter, or dropping the filter in the process - have done that many times. I'm sure the extra air-glass surfaces don't help with flare, contrast and sharpness either. So I stopped using UV or clear filters except when extra protection against dust or salt spray was needed, and even then I was often using a polariser anyway.
I never got in the habit of using hoods as I found them inconvenient, they take up too much space in my camera bag and I like keeping my kit nice and compact. Like clear filters they also make using polarisers difficult, you have to take the hood off to put the polariser on and off which slowed me down and increased the risk of stray fingers and fumbles. If I noticed the lens was flaring, I would use my hand to shade the front element, or move into the shade, or change the angle of view so the flare went away.
In the digital age I use polarisers much less, they seem to make less of a difference than they did on film (chromes), and often seem to cause a loss of contrast. So now I have started using hoods more often, I have a couple which are relatively small while providing a useful amount of protection. Sometimes I simply put an empty filter ring (no glass) on the lens. It keeps the unit nice and compact, the lens cap still fits, and those few extra mm do make a useful difference in keeping fingers away from the front element. Most modern lenses have plastic filter threads, so an empty metal filter ring also helps to protect the front rim from knocks. With no glass the filter ring is easier to handle - no risk of putting fingerprints on it, so it is easier to swap out if I do need a polariser.
-
BR,
That hood on your fast tele is fine. Look at what's included with the newer 70-300, all longer zooms? How about the old 80-400VR? That was a wonderful hood.
I use the old metal, crinkle coat 77mm and sometimes use a wide 82mm hood on 2-lens, 17-70mm. Heck. when i get a higher end rig up and running, I will use a hood.
(I have a small pile of scalloped, Nikon plastic hoods, I cannot keep track or use. Basically worthless, If I'd cut all the tele hoods in half all would be better utility.)
-
I no longer use any filters.
In the past, I've found them useful when there's been a lot of spray around, especially sea spray.
I also used to shoot at motorcycle meets from time to time, and there were a lot of fast moving grit & other particles in the air then.
Any glasses wearer knows what their lens has been exposed to by the end of a shoot :)
If my dream came true and I was sat by the side of the track with a new 400mm f2.8 or 500mm f4, I might ponder this a bit more as I don't believe a lens hood would be enough. However I'm not sure pros use filters???
-
For the 'dream' lenses you mention, a filter cannot be put on the front anyway. Any filter goes into a rear drawer.
Most 'pro' photographers would use a filter only if it is required.
-
I stopped using filters when I switched to digital. But I always use a lens hood for the reasons mentioned above.
-
Ditto. After film was over no more filters.
Yes always a lens hood on!
The sensor cover glass surface is reflective, film was not.Yes, the light reflected off the sensor cover glass and reflected out through the lens can hit the inside of the filter and reflect back, especially at night.
-
Lensrentals has a very good article on transmission spectrograms of (some) UV and clear filters: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/09/looking-at-clear-and-uv-filter-spectrograms/
This other blog post has links to a bunch of other articles they wrote about filters. Worth a read. Check the first paragraphs for the links: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/
My personal conclusion: like Birna: hood, polarizer or spray protection.