Author Topic: New filter's age?  (Read 3415 times)

PedroS

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 412
  • You ARE NikonGear
New filter's age?
« on: January 11, 2017, 20:16:23 »

Roland Vink

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1535
  • Nikon Nerd from New Zealand
    • Nikon Database
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2017, 20:40:24 »
Only seem to be made in large sizes - 67mm - 105mm.
I wonder how good they are optically?

PedroS

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 412
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2017, 21:21:00 »
Only seem to be made in large sizes - 67mm - 105mm.
I wonder how good they are optically?

Yep indeed.
Surfing the net they seem ok optically

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12825
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2017, 21:35:19 »
The increased stiffness is more effective on the larger filters, I guess.
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira

Mongo

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 844
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2017, 05:36:17 »
always a slightly controversial subject but they sometimes fix a necessary evil of added protection. The question as always been about their respective clarity and any adverse affect on images.
The higher end lenses usually come with their own protective meniscus front lens. This is meant to be sacrificed in an unfortunate situation to protect the Special glass lenses that usually sit immediately behind them (as well as elsewhere in the lens). So, they are never a real issue or concern. It is the other medium grade lenses that do not come with a meniscus lens and that you want to protect; especially wildlife lenses used in environment that are likely to attract an accident or excess dust, moisture etc, that the issue might arise as to filter or not to filter. The answer to this usually depends on how good and non-destructive the filter is to the image quality.

Mongo had this issue when he got his 200-500 Nikkor. It is used in anything but a studio-like environment so protection was a high priority. Research at the time revealed that some of the older Hoya UVs had some of the best figures ever for light transmission, UV cover over the relevant spectrum range and least distortion. However, they are no longer made and almost impossible to find in 95mm size. Mongo found that the best available at the time based on lab test and figures was the new Hoya Fusion  Antistatic filter and so invested in one. Even so, its figures may still not have been quite as good as a particular older Hoya UV"0" which is no longer available. When looking at the lab testing, it came as no surprise that some of the fanciest names and prices in the business did not rank very well at all.

Non of this directly addresses Perdo's point on sheer strength of physical protective power if that is what you are using the filter to do and Mongo cannot say that the Hoya fusion is anything like the strength of the ceramic filters he has mentioned. In the overall scheme of things, most of us would weigh the various aspects of a filter eg, strength, clarity, etc to decide what might be best if we had decided that a filter should be used on any particular lens. The answer to this question remains relatively unclear and that is why the same question seems to continue.  One day , perhaps the perfect filter which addresses all the relevant issue will be developed and this enigma will be no more. In the interim, we are left to the best available research and technology at the time to help us decide and choose.

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12825
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2017, 06:56:43 »
The latest filter offered by Kenko-Tokina (probably the Japanese domestic brand name of Hoya) is the ZX series which enploys the "floating frame technology" to release the stress imposed by the conventional retaining system of the filter frame and to achieve the utmost flatness.

Here is the link (the most texts are in Japanese, but their Floating Frame Technology is explained in English as well):

http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/zx-filter.html
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12825
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2017, 07:05:55 »
Recently I used EXUS protection filter on my trusty 50/1.8G, the highest range filter by Marumi.  It uses a 2-mm-thick glass to keep the flatness.

However, when I tentatively removed the filter, the lens performed noticeably better in terms of sharpness when focused at distance (virtually at infinity).

Apparently Nikon is not trying to promote the fluorine coating as actively as Canon, Tamron or Sigma, which is strange.
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira

PedroS

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 412
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2017, 13:12:56 »
Good points Mongo and Akira.

I don't use filters for 99% of the time, but always the hood.

Nevertheless is incredible the development in sheer protection that glass as become.

JJChan

  • JJ Chan
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 300
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2017, 14:21:44 »
I live in pretty dusty environment and close to salt and spray. As I have a few nice lenses, they get the filter which I feel is at least some protection.

Pedro please give link to filter tests - can't find it on google! Thanks

I came across some Zeiss T* coated filters which have a noticeable clarity compared to B+W. A lot less internal reflection with minimal ghosting - feels like higher transmission. I have them on my expensive glass now. A minor positive - Sony filters are identical but much cheaper - come in a few sizes only 40.5, 49, 55, 62, 67, 72, 77 and 82mm. 52mm Zeiss only $$$

JJ

MFloyd

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1801
  • My quest for the "perfect" speed blur
    • Adobe Portfolio
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2017, 15:09:17 »
In the "film age" I had filters on all my lenses. Now, not a single one; but always had a lens hood.  The only situation in which I would consider the usage of a filter, is for my sailing / yachting photographs.
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν

pluton

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2687
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2017, 22:54:34 »
In my limited experience with very long/narrow angle of view lenses, it has been demonstrated that the #1 concern about filters combined with long lenses is the optical/refractive quality.  Extremely small imperfections in flatness (or curvature in the case of the meniscus lens), which would make no difference whatsoever with a moderate tele or wide angle lens, can disrupt the imaging of a long lens.  Slight differences in color or transmission between brands and types is a relatively unimportant issue in comparison.
Also, beware "protection" filters that are too thin. I once purchased a filter called "Hoya Pro 1 Digital 82mm MC Protector".  I can't get the glass out to measure the thickness and don't have the tool to measure the thickness while it's in the ring, but this filter is so light in weight that the thickness of the glass has to be called into question.  It easy to imagine this super-thin filter offering very little protection if it were actually called upon to deflect a flying rock or other debris.
Keith B., Santa Monica, CA, USA

PedroS

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 412
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2017, 23:07:56 »
In my limited experience with very long/narrow angle of view lenses, it has been demonstrated that the #1 concern about filters combined with long lenses is the optical quality.  Extremely small imperfections in flatness (or curvature in the case of the meniscus lens), which would make no difference whatsoever with a moderate tele or wide angle lens, can disrupt the imaging of a long lens.  Slight differences in color or transmission between brands and types is a relatively unimportant issue in comparison.
Also, beware "protection" filters that are too thin. I once purchased a filter called "Hoya Pro 1 Digital 82mm MC Protector".  I can't get the glass out to measure the thickness and don't have the tool to measure the thickness while it's in the ring, but this filter is so light in weight that the thickness of the glass has to be called into question.  It easy to imagine this super-thin filter offering very little protection if it were actually called upon to deflect a flying rock or other debris.

Sigma WR - 1,33mm
Hoya HD - 1,94mm
Nikon NC - 2,05mm

Jakov Minić

  • Jakov Minic
  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5354
  • The Hague, The Netherlands
    • Jakov Minić
Re: New filter's age?
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2017, 23:59:59 »
The only filters I use are for infrared photography. However I use hoods for protection and they have saved my lenses, even the wide ones like the 17-35/2.8.
Free your mind and your ass will follow. - George Clinton
Before I jump like monkey give me banana. - Fela Kuti
Confidence is what you have before you understand the problem. - Woody Allen