Posted by Norm Krell on August 20, 2008 at 11:10 PM
I am extremely new to digital photography and have bought a Nikon D80. I am getting a 70 - 200 f2.8 VR lens and would like to have a filter on it from day one to protect it. I have noticed filters come in all price ranges with different purposes. What do I need to protect my lens and does it need to be made for digital cameras. Any ideas would really help me.
Norm, get the highest quality multi-coated filter you can find. Anything less than that will get in the way of the quality your lens is capable of, and for which you'll be paying a premium. Alternatively, many choose to keep the lens exposed and use the lens shade to protect the front element.
And when using a filter, use the lens hood as much as possible any time light- whether sunlight or artificial light- can hit directly on the front of the lens. This will help eliminate flares, which can be a real problem with added filters. That's a good rule of thumb with lenses in general, but it's especially important when using filters.
There is no subsitute for a high quality multi-coated filter. B&W, Zeiss/Contax, Hoya Pro 1D, Kenko Pro SMC, Heliopan - are all really great filters. Many of these are available in thin mount for use with ultrawide lenses.
The difference can be dramatic. I purchased a used Sigma ultrawide zoom which had an average quality filter on it. No matter what I tried, I could not get a crisp image with it. Thinking the lens was misaligned, based on the numerous message posts in various forums about this lens in particular, I sent it back to Sigma for realignment. It came back and it was better, but still not sharp. I then suspected the filter, a single-coated Hoya, so I removed it. It was as if I had been taking pictures through waxed paper all along and now it was removed. I immediately began taking clear, crisp, well-saturated images. I replace the junk filter with a Hoya Pro 1D UV filter and noticed virtually no degradation, and a slight improvement in saturation, especially on landscape shots. It is definitely worth the extra $50 or so for a premium filter.
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 28, 2008 at 12:41 AM
I have never used "protection" filters. I photo almost every day, outdoors, in the worst conditions the Dakotas can throw at me. None of my lenses have ever had a mark on them. I've come to see the "protection filter" deal as a racket for camera sellers to make a few easy bucks. I don't use filters if not needed because every now and then they spoil an image for me. Yes, I use the best B+W mrc or Hoya SMC filters available. Still get problems. I can't always predict it. I also honestly don't think the UV filters do anything at all. They are a very flimsy piece of glass. Instead of flimsy glass I use the lens cap to protect my lenses. It is FAR tougher and has never failed me. The lens cap is on my lens whenever I'm not actively taking a photo. I also use the lens hood. It deflects bad things from hitting the lens in the first place, and if the lens is dropped it will absorb the blow.
Here's something to consider. I once had a tripod blow over with my Nikon 80-400mm VR lens on it, no lens cap and no lens hood. I did have a B+W polarizer on it. Lens hit "face" down. A rock went through the filter, the broken bits of filter scratched up my lens. I sent it in for repair. Turns out the lens already had a "protection" element built in. To replace that it cost me $80. The B+W filter cost me $120!!! So, how smart was that? A $120 filter protecting an $80 piece of glass? If the lens had the lens cap on, I'm positive it would have survived. I have the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, Nikon 80-400mm VR, Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. These all take 77mm filters. Just these four lenses are about $4,500 worth of glass. None have ever had UV filters on them. They always have a lens cap on. They are all perfect.
Posted by Steve Foss on August 28, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Norm, I second Hanks's advice and am in Kent's camp on whether or not to use protective filters. Aside from his unfortunate accident, I've had the same experience Kent has had with my lenses.
But I'd encourage you to buy the high quality filter if it gives you piece of mind. Anything that can take a photographer's mind off worrying about gear protection and focusing strongly on the art is a good thing, IMO. I started in photography with the protective UV filters but ended up taking them off. Now about the only reason I put one on is when I'm on a multi-camera shoot in gardens or woods or other dirty environments and need to be swinging cameras on and off my shoulder. Then I put one on my 17-40 because wide angle hoods don't offer near the protection of telephoto hoods.
Posted by Norm Krell on August 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Thanks guys. I was wondering about the usefullness of these filters but didn't really know for sure. Sounds like maybe a polarizing filter or other filters would be a better investment right off the start.
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 29, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I once was staying in Yellowstone, and began hiking out towards Fairy Falls. After 20 minutes of walking, I realized I had forgotten my polarizer. I turned around and went back and got it. If I lived near Jasper etc., I would go crazy if I didn't have a polarizer to use. They make a huge difference on photos with water in them. Just don't leave it on without thinking--they do eat up almost two stops of light.
Kent in SD
Posted by Steve Foss on August 30, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Norm, I like a CP too for some situations. As mentioned, top-brand multicoated CP is the way to go.
Discussion
8 repliesGuy
The difference can be dramatic. I purchased a used Sigma ultrawide zoom which had an average quality filter on it. No matter what I tried, I could not get a crisp image with it. Thinking the lens was misaligned, based on the numerous message posts in various forums about this lens in particular, I sent it back to Sigma for realignment. It came back and it was better, but still not sharp. I then suspected the filter, a single-coated Hoya, so I removed it. It was as if I had been taking pictures through waxed paper all along and now it was removed. I immediately began taking clear, crisp, well-saturated images. I replace the junk filter with a Hoya Pro 1D UV filter and noticed virtually no degradation, and a slight improvement in saturation, especially on landscape shots. It is definitely worth the extra $50 or so for a premium filter.
Here's something to consider. I once had a tripod blow over with my Nikon 80-400mm VR lens on it, no lens cap and no lens hood. I did have a B+W polarizer on it. Lens hit "face" down. A rock went through the filter, the broken bits of filter scratched up my lens. I sent it in for repair. Turns out the lens already had a "protection" element built in. To replace that it cost me $80. The B+W filter cost me $120!!! So, how smart was that? A $120 filter protecting an $80 piece of glass? If the lens had the lens cap on, I'm positive it would have survived. I have the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, Nikon 80-400mm VR, Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. These all take 77mm filters. Just these four lenses are about $4,500 worth of glass. None have ever had UV filters on them. They always have a lens cap on. They are all perfect.
Take a look at this if you want a second opinion:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
Kent in SD
But I'd encourage you to buy the high quality filter if it gives you piece of mind. Anything that can take a photographer's mind off worrying about gear protection and focusing strongly on the art is a good thing, IMO. I started in photography with the protective UV filters but ended up taking them off. Now about the only reason I put one on is when I'm on a multi-camera shoot in gardens or woods or other dirty environments and need to be swinging cameras on and off my shoulder. Then I put one on my 17-40 because wide angle hoods don't offer near the protection of telephoto hoods.
Kent in SD