Nikkor 600mm f/4 E FL - Internal Filter - Do I Need It.

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).

PAUL50

PAUL50

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Simple question, I think. I recently purchased the NIkkor 600mm f/4 E FL lens, which comes with an internal filter holder and Nikon, for the price (how kind) threw in a clear circular ND filter that came inserted in the holder and in the lens. Well, I’m thinking I don’t want an unnecessary clear piece of glass between the lens elements and the camera’s sensor and so the question (which wasn’t addressed in the Nikon manual or website) is do I need that ND filter in the lens holder and in the lens or can I remove the filter and just put the holder back in the slot empty. It’s clear the holder has to be inserted to cover the otherwise exposed slot. Perhaps there is some reason why it should remain there, which is why I’m asking. I have a circular polarizer on order and I can see plenty of good reasons for using that in appropriate conditions but I can see no reason for an extraneous and useless piece of glass. I’m very interested to hear the views of those in the group who have dealt with similar issues. Thanks.
 
Member's gallery
Yes, absolutely correct. Don't remove that filter nor lose it, as expensive to replace. The 40.5mm CPL is radically overpriced, but it has its uses eg over reflections off water, bird's plumage and waxy leaves.... I use the same cpl in the tropics in bright sunlight, in the 400 f2.8E
I recall Steve did a video on benefits costs of using polarizing filters with telephotos

Barbara said:
I don;t think I would remove the clear filter, as it's part of the design. You could remove the filter and holder, tape over the opening, and take some test shots to see whether there's any difference.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
I don't think it is as black and white as stated here. I have experimented quite a bit with various super telelenses, using them with and without the internal filter for durations to get a thourough impression on how these filters affect performance, for the better or the worse.
I find that they have a noticeable influence on things like color balance, color casting and on fine detail rendering with high resolution cameras. The lower the resolution of the sensor, the less impact will be noticeable.
The filter is a flat piece of glass, and I believe that it is common knowledge that flat glass surfaces are relatively hard for light to travel through without being impacted, rounded surfaces are much easier.

But theory is one thing, trying it out for longer than just one shoot is much better. I owned the Canon 400mm f4DO II, and that lens had the older Canon drop-in filter glass, and the lens performed much better i.m.o. without the filter on ther high resolution 7DII. On the other hand, I also owned the Sigma 500mm f4, and that lens performed noticeably worse without the filter on the D500.

My impression is, that the better the glass coatings, like the ultra high quality coatings on the Canon 400DOII, and the worse the filter glass, the more it is likely that the lens will do better without the filter.
If the coatings are not quite top notch, leading to a lens with (slightlly lower (micro) contrast and less pure color rendering) and the filter is relatively high quality, then you may get something like with the Sigma 500S, where contrast was worse without the filter in place, and the colors and fine detail did not gain anything like with the Canon 400DOII.

The precise lens design may also play a part, but I got the feeling that it is mostly about the quality of the glass/coatings in the lens relative to the quality of the filter.
The best results though, are when there is no drop in filter in the design. Note that lenses without such a drop in filter tend to score very high, for instance:
-Nikon 500PF
-Olympus 150-400mm f4.5
-Sony 200-600mm G
These are all modern lenses that are priced (well) below the top end lenses, but that score very high on IQ.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
ChrisM said:
I don't think it is as black and white as stated here. I have experimented quite a bit with various super telelenses, using them with and without the internal filter for durations to get a thourough impression on how these filters affect performance, for the better or the worse.
I find that they have a noticeable influence on things like color balance, color casting and on fine detail rendering with high resolution cameras. The lower the resolution of the sensor, the less impact will be noticeable.
The filter is a flat piece of glass, and I believe that it is common knowledge that flat glass surfaces are relatively hard for light to travel through without being impacted, rounded surfaces are much easier.

But theory is one thing, trying it out for longer than just one shoot is much better. I owned the Canon 400mm f4DO II, and that lens had the older Canon drop-in filter glass, and the lens performed much better i.m.o. without the filter on ther high resolution 7DII. On the other hand, I also owned the Sigma 500mm f4, and that lens performed noticeably worse without the filter on the D500.

My impression is, that the better the glass coatings, like the ultra high quality coatings on the Canon 400DOII, and the worse the filter glass, the more it is likely that the lens will do better without the filter.
If the coatings are not quite top notch, leading to a lens with (slightlly lower (micro) contrast and less pure color rendering) and the filter is relatively high quality, then you may get something like with the Sigma 500S, where contrast was worse without the filter in place, and the colors and fine detail did not gain anything like with the Canon 400DOII.

The precise lens design may also play a part, but I got the feeling that it is mostly about the quality of the glass/coatings in the lens relative to the quality of the filter.
The best results though, are when there is no drop in filter in the design. Note that lenses without such a drop in filter tend to score very high, for instance:
-Nikon 500PF
-Olympus 150-400mm f4.5
-Sony 200-600mm G
These are all modern lenses that are priced (well) below the top end lenses, but that score very high on IQ.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input. I’ll test to see how it performs with and without the filter.
 
Member's gallery
Hmmmm.. This is an interesting subject. Something I havent really thought about... I have a 600mm f4G,, 500mm f4G and a 300mm f2.8G.. They are all from the same generation. I'm guessing the same applies.
 
Member's gallery
The G apterure models of the F-mount Nikkor telephoto primes (pertinently 200 f2G, 300 f2.8G) and the current E FL primes rate among the very best telephotos ever tested. These tests include Lens Rentals etc. This is not surprising, considering the G and E aperture models of these Susumu Sato (aka the Genius Sato). He upgraded his original designs introduced in the early-mid 1990s, to get out these lighter optics - using fluorite etc. I have it on authority in an on line conversation with his colleague Haruo Sato, that Susumu Sato also is responsible for the excellence of the E FL primes.

One has to ask if Susumu lapsed from his high engineering standards by including these internal interchangeable filters.... and he would have compensated for image quality with the internal coated flat filters - with provision to swop in a 52mm or 40.5mm CPL.

By all means dabble in trying to remove an internal optic but what is the point considering the Nikon and best 3rd party front filters barely detract from image quality? Nikon makes its own glass and coats these internal filters for optimal performance. just my $0.02c

 
Member's gallery
PAUL50 said:
Simple question, I think. I recently purchased the NIkkor 600mm f/4 E FL lens, which comes with an internal filter holder and Nikon, for the price (how kind) threw in a clear circular ND filter that came inserted in the holder and in the lens. Well, I’m thinking I don’t want an unnecessary clear piece of glass between the lens elements and the camera’s sensor and so the question (which wasn’t addressed in the Nikon manual or website) is do I need that ND filter in the lens holder and in the lens or can I remove the filter and just put the holder back in the slot empty. It’s clear the holder has to be inserted to cover the otherwise exposed slot. Perhaps there is some reason why it should remain there, which is why I’m asking. I have a circular polarizer on order and I can see plenty of good reasons for using that in appropriate conditions but I can see no reason for an extraneous and useless piece of glass. I’m very interested to hear the views of those in the group who have dealt with similar issues. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You won't notice any difference in optical performance, but the filter actually seals the inside of the lens when you remove the rear cap. Easy way to get fungus growing inside of the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top