Recommended UV Filter for Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

N

Nobby

Member
Member's gallery
Hi,

I added the Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6 to my kit replacing my 200-500 f/5.6 to work with my D850 / D500 and I am very happy with the performance. This was due to some great advice on building my kit for wildlife

I intended to add a Breakthrough UV X4 filter at the same time, [around £115] but this has been unavailable for many months with no stock arriving in the UK

I have a UV B+W filter on my 24-70 f/2.8 and a Breakthrough filter UV X4 on my 70-200 f/2.8 and these both work very well

Can I ask you all for recommendations on should I wait for the breakthrough filters to arrive in stock or spend my money elsewhere and on what?

Hope you can help

Nobby
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Use a Sigma “Protection” filter. B&H offers 3 different options starting at $121. Have one on my 500pf and one on my wife’s 500pf. Can’t say that we can detect any loss of image quality. Definitely recommend using a protection filter, better than risking damage to the front element, in my opinion. Both of ours are the basic protection filter.
 
Member's gallery
when I use them, my preferred filters are B & W. I ditched Hoya and Tiffen long ago. As Ralph says, for protection, the Nikon clear protectors are a good option.
 
Member's gallery
I pass totally on filter for my 500 PF, and other lenses. But suggest the Nikon Clear (as mentioned, I have used it in the past on lenses) if you really feel the need for a filter
 
Member's gallery
There is a Marumi DHG lens Protect on my 500 PF. BandW, Zeiss are excellent but Nikon and Marumi are not far behind. Almost all my protect filters, also CPLs, are Marumi, which I sourced from Microglobe, London (near the British Museum). Excellent shop

Tests of some brands I've bookmarked but some years back.

https://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html

https://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Circular-Polarizer-Filters.aspx

https://improvephotography.com/42653/best-circular-polarizing-filter-money/
 
Member's gallery
I have put a Sigma Clear filter on mine. Just over £100 from memory. I have carefully tested this filter on my lens and can see no difference at all in terms of image quality with it attached, compared with no filter at all.
 
Member's gallery
I believe UV does not affect digital sensors like it does film so no need for UV filters with digital bodies.

Why add another layer of glass with perhaps lessor optical quality in front of lenses we fret over for price and optical performance?

No UV or clear filters here on any lenses including the 500mm PF and 200-500mm.

For front lens element damage control a lens hood is likely a better option. BCG's Steve P tested filters (search for it) for protective use and found them basically unneeded unless shooting in dusty / sandy environment. Many lenses like the 500 PF are already weather resistant.
 
Member's gallery
This seems to be an ongoing discussion with two distinct camps!

My point of view is that yes, there is the possibility of protection from impact, using the filter as a sacrificial front protector. This has (probably) saved my bacon once with a 70-200mm Nikkor. The filter was not smashed but had a nasty scratch on it and I just replaced the filter for about £30 or so. There have been several Nikon telephoto primes on sale from second-hand websites over the past few years, one of them a 600mm, that were being advertised with a significant scratch on the front element and obviously at reduced prices, so it does happen! There is usually a caveat that the scratch will not have any effect on the image quality but personally I would not buy a lens with a scratched front element, especially a multi-thousand pound big telephoto!

More importantly for me is the protection to the lens from accumulative damage resulting from cleaning and with many lenses, the difficulty of getting at the front element, to be able to clean properly in the first place. I own several lenses that have deeply sunk front elements (Nikon's 50mm f1.8 G for instance) and it is much easier, for me at least, to clean the lens very thoroughly once, usually when new, and then 'seal' this with a filter that is much easier to clean. I never need to touch the lens' front element again and if the lens is new out of the box, just a quick dust with a blower is all that is necessary.

As I said above, I have tested several lenses both with and without clear/UV filters and have been unable to detect any IQ loss with the filter. Possibly, I may not be critical enough and possibly when shooting into a bright light source there might be a problem. This is just my opinion of course and others may think differently!
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
David Burns said:
This seems to be an ongoing discussion with two distinct camps!

My point of view is that yes, there is the possibility of protection from impact, using the filter as a sacrificial front protector. This has (probably) saved my bacon once with a 70-200mm Nikkor. The filter was not smashed but had a nasty scratch on it and I just replaced the filter for about £30 or so. There have been several Nikon telephoto primes on sale from second-hand websites over the past few years, one of them a 600mm, that were being advertised with a significant scratch on the front element and obviously at reduced prices, so it does happen! There is usually a caveat that the scratch will not have any effect on the image quality but personally I would not buy lens with a scratched front element, especially a multi-thousand pound big telephoto!

More importantly for me is the protection to the lens from accumulative damage resulting from cleaning and with many lenses, the difficulty of getting at the front element, to be able to clean properly in the first place. I own several lenses that have deeply sunk front elements (Nikon's 50mm f1.8 G for instance) and it is much easier, for me at least, to clean the lens very thoroughly once, usually when new, and then 'seal' this with a filter that is much easier to clean. I never need to touch the lens' front element again and if the lens is new out of the box, just a quick dust with a blower is all that is necessary.

As I said above, I have tested several lenses both with and without clear/UV filters and have been unable to detect any IQ loss with the filter. Possibly, I may not be critical enough and possibly when shooting into a bright light source there might be a problem. This is just my opinion of course and others may think differently!
Click to expand...
Much rather damage a filter that can be easily replaced than the front element. Sometimes plans or the environment changes. Do agree that a lens hood provides a great deal of protection. Have you ever seen what bird droppings can do to paint ? Think what it can do to the coating on a lens. Shoot enough birds in Florida sooner or later one will get you.
 
Member's gallery
All,

Interestingly, I have just watched Steve's video on filters [DRymyoming, thank you for sharing] and the its hard not to agree that filter will not protect the glass on impact. As I think about this, my main fear is scratching the lens from the elements if I am not careful on cleaning or a slight knock that marks the glass. I always use a lens hoods along the neoprene covers on the lens as the first lines of protection.

Based on that, I still need to protect the glass and as I waited longer enough to get the 500mm PF f/5.6 in the first place and I don't want to start again. I do know that I will knock the lens at some point and this may help in some way

FYI, this is the website for breakthrough filters that I was intending to buy, has anyone else used these, the reviews are good and I already have the UV X4 on my 70-200mm VRII f/2.8?

https://www.breakthroughfilters.co.uk

On the thread I have some great options to review so thank you for your quick replies and I will check these out one by one

Just for interest I have always looked at UV filters rather than clear filters, watching the video do you have a preference either way?

Thank you all for your help

Nobby
 
Member's gallery
Tony Northrup has an older video on their YouTube channel regarding filter and lens scratch angst that I've found entertaining and informative to watch. Especially at a little over 9 min into video where he "sacrifices" his Canon nifty-fifty lens.

Front lens elements are really hard coated optical glass. Obviously lens scratches are not desirable - but if relatively minor scratches do occur they'll never be in focus and be noticeable.

 
Member's gallery
I use a filter from B + H on the front of my Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf lens. After seeing a $1000+ 24-70mm lens destroyed at Bosque one cold morning by hot poop from a snow geese at take off hit a cold lens, I felt that protecting my expensive glass was a good investment. The lens shattered when the poop hot the front element.

I just checked the lens. I have a B+W 010 UV -Haze MRC on 500mm f5.6 pf.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I’ve witnessed photographers, cameras, and lenses covered with bird droppings. All part of my reasoning of using a filter. A bit of advice (non camera related). In Florida with all the surrounding water ways if a bird happens to “bomb” you while driving, Pelican’s are the worst, DON’T use your wipes !
 
Member's gallery
An interesting video from Tony Northrop, someone who I usually admire, but not from this one! As well as a masterclass on how not to use a tripod, most of the rest of it made little sense to me. Plastic filters! Really?
 
Member's gallery
This is slightly off topic... I have been on a rafting trip, where I have been through rapids with waves splashing me. I have some older Olympus gear which hung on my chest. I got some good pics, but eventually some dirt in the water left a film on the lens, so some cleaning was required. I did take a video with no hands!

I also went on a sea kayaking trip off Vancouver Island. Again, Olympus camera hanging on my chest. Both me and the camera ended up in the salt water briefly. The 12-100 lens has external zoom (the lens length changes). The zooming is not quite as smooth now.
 
Member's gallery
Nobby said:
Hi,

I added the Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6 to my kit replacing my 200-500 f/5.6 to work with my D850 / D500 and I am very happy with the performance. This was due to some great advice on building my kit for wildlife

I intended to add a Breakthrough UV X4 filter at the same time, [around £115] but this has been unavailable for many months with no stock arriving in the UK

I have a UV B+W filter on my 24-70 f/2.8 and a Breakthrough filter UV X4 on my 70-200 f/2.8 and these both work very well

Can I ask you all for recommendations on should I wait for the breakthrough filters to arrive in stock or spend my money elsewhere and on what?

Hope you can help

Nobby
Click to expand...
I just got the Nikon 500 PF lens in June, and I ordered along with it a 95mm B+W clear (Neutral) filter.

I got the filter to protect the lens from sand, dust, raindrops, etc. I did NOT get a UV filter because I learned that in the world of digital cameras, you really don't need a UV filter. DSLR camera sensors, unlike film, are not very sensitive to UV light. I got UV filters for my 18-300mm and 200-500mm when I was just getting back into a couple of years ago based on old habits from my days in film photography.

I'd recommend getting a clear filter.
 
Member's gallery
Attached are two pictures I took over Labor Day weekend with the 500mm f5.6 pf on my D500. Filter was on the lens. Shutter speed for the group 1/1000; for single 1/2000.

JVSmith_210903_Brock Ceek Nature Area_6_1883_DxO_DxO.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
JVSmith_210903_Brock Ceek Nature Area_6_2443_DxO_DxO.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Filter is not really necessary. Lens hood and the coating Nikon applies keeps things clean and safe. I have had this lens out in the rain-camera and lens completely soaked and dripping wet and it continued to take great photos. This image for instance. Raining moderately. Wiped the lens and saw these chasing each other. D850, no EC or filter. 1/4000, f 8, ISO 3600.
 
Member's gallery
sinewsworn said:
Filter is not really necessary. Lens hood and the coating Nikon applies keeps things clean and safe. I have had this lens out in the rain-camera and lens completely soaked and dripping wet and it continued to take great photos. This image for instance. Raining moderately. Wiped the lens and saw these chasing each other. D850, no EC or filter. 1/4000, f 8, ISO 3600.
Click to expand...
Gulls Chasing Each Other Belfair SP 9-12-2021.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Gulls Chasing Each Other Belfair SP 9-12-2021.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
While my first line of defense is my lens hood and they are always on. I use Breakthrough 4XUV and Circular Polarizer filters on everything except the 600 f/4E which does not accommodate front filters. I used to use B+W but a regional rep and glass whiz for a lens manufacturer told me that in tests the Breakthrough UV was the only one that did not show color shift and showed no degradation of the image or even loss of light. When I started using breakthrough the rep. UV can supposedly still be useful even with digital in the thinner air high altitude and Breakthough and the lens pro mentioned above say there is difference between a quality UV and clear filter hence why Breaktrhough does not make a clear filter. I am not a glass tech or expert but I have done test shots with and without the Breakthrough 4X UV on my 500 PF and could see no difference in quality and the auto ISO when shooting in Manual Mode did not change and turning that off and going full manual the same settings put the meter to the same place. I have not used other filters for several years now so I could not say that others have not caught up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top