Agreed, worked in a camera store when I was in college in 1979, met my wife while working there.
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).
IainD
Well-known member
Like many, I put a good filter, normally UV, on my lens if I am on the beach with spray and sand, or if there are other hazards. Otherwise no.
Sometimes I transport my lenses with a filter to protect from dust and grit in transit, and take the filter off to shoot.
Sometimes I transport my lenses with a filter to protect from dust and grit in transit, and take the filter off to shoot.
Here we go again…
I was a firm believer in filters to protect the front element. When my old and sold D90 fell with it’s tripod, the filter smashed while the lens was intact. But, after watching Steve’s video, I believe that the D90 front element would be intact even without a filter, and if the impact would have been stronger, the front element would have still remained intact while the lens itself would be damaged internally.
On my first Z glass I bought the expensive B+W filters with all the coatings. Its still on those lenses. But on newer glass I didn’t bother buying filters. The 800pf doesn’t support front filters.
Edit: The B+W I do have, are all discontinued at B&H. No idea why.
I was a firm believer in filters to protect the front element. When my old and sold D90 fell with it’s tripod, the filter smashed while the lens was intact. But, after watching Steve’s video, I believe that the D90 front element would be intact even without a filter, and if the impact would have been stronger, the front element would have still remained intact while the lens itself would be damaged internally.
On my first Z glass I bought the expensive B+W filters with all the coatings. Its still on those lenses. But on newer glass I didn’t bother buying filters. The 800pf doesn’t support front filters.
Edit: The B+W I do have, are all discontinued at B&H. No idea why.
What you are likely indirectly referring to is that the longer faster telephoto lenses have a miniscus front element - for a reason.
Conventional multi coating is only effective close to an angle of 90° to a glass surface.
Highlights reflected off the mirror-shiny sensor surface forward through the lens elements can and sometimes are reflected of the rear of a lens element at the wrong angle, back toward the sensor, creating an out of original alignment highlight image in the image.
The front element of a lens is designed to receive light at whatever the angle of view of the lens is - which is often very different to parallel to the sensor surfaces of a screw in filter.
Conventional screw-in filters are not meniscus shaped and can increase the risk of highlight detail reflected off the sensor reaching the rear of the screw-in filter at an angle some way from 90 degrees and being reflected back toward the sensor with risk of either double highlight or a slight reduction of contrast affecting the image.
Miniscus (slightly curved) front elements on several long Nikon and Canon and I presume Sony lenses are slightly curve shaped to allow highlight detail reflected off the sensor to pass harmlessly through the front element rather than back toward the sensor.
As light entering the front of a long focal length lens is close to the optical axis only a modest meniscus curve is needed, I presume making a miniscus relatively easy to design and manufacture.
I doubt a screw-in minisus for a lens like a 24-120 can be successfully designed as different curves would be needed for different focal lengths.
Using pol filters is unlikely to an issue - as they only work well with the sun not in front of the camera.
Going back moderately in time I found when Nikon introduced nano coating flare issues shooting toward the sun were significantly reduced.
Although I do not normally use front screw in filters I speculate there are fewer screw-in front filter issues with nano coated lenses.
Some hard cut screw-in UV filters absorbl light shorter than about 440nm - and can prevent a little blue and some purple colour being recorded.
Clear filters do not have this issue - though the still have the sometimes double highlight or contrast reducing effect of a rear surface parallel to the sensor in front of the front element.
As digital sensors are much, much more reflective than film (except polaroid 35mm when it was around) negative image issues using filters is distinctly greater shooting digital than film.
Whether to regard front filters as a worthwhile investment even though they are generally close to useless for realistic front element protection, can cost more than insurance that financially protects the entire lenses, and can sometimes degrade image quality (a lot if cheap and not optical glass) is personal choice.
Captain Spaulding
Active member
Against most advice, I use a B&W 1A on all my lenses. I can't say it helps or hurts anything. Just a little peace of mind since I don't know with certainty where I'll use that lens next.
Ad Astra
Well-known member
KASE make a UV filter for the Nikon 800PF, uses a special filter ring. I was interested in one to use around sand and sea spray until I saw the price of the KASE filter.
Last edited:
Link?
Doug Herr
Well-known member
IMHO this matters more than the advice of others, if it means you're more comfortable using your equipment.
Oh Wow!!!!
I am not going to buy it and do not live in the USA so no reason to set up a B&H account for more information.
As it is not a clear type filter I would want to know the light transmission around the 400 nm range or lack thereof; where some UV cut out some magenta zone colour.
Also as it is a magnetic type filter, is it held as firmly in place as a screw-in type filter?
The Kase filter for the 800 mm PF lens is not magnetic. It screws in to a bracket that attaches to the lens. I bought one to use in the case of salt spray, blowing sand and the like. Wish it were a simple clear filter, rather than UV. Do not plan to use it for most shooting. My Zemlin lens hood does well for impact protection and simple rain or snow. Used it on a recent trip with shooting on the ocean and it seemed to work well.
[Added a clarification — the reference to “it” in last sentence was to the Kase filter being used on my 800 mm PF. The Zemlin hood also worked very well, as it always does.]
Last edited:
I stop using UV filters when I stopped using film. WIth film I had filters like an 81A and an occasional UV filter. W digital I can adjust the color temp so I don't need to color temp.
Just looked on B&H's website and they describe the Kase filter for the front of the 800 mm PF as having a magnetic attachment. That's interesting.
I ordered my Kase filter for the front of my 800 mm PF in October last year, after exchanging emails with Kase's US distributor about where to buy the filter. The actual purchase was through the Kase store on Amazon. My filter screws on to the adapter and does not have a magnetic attachment. Perhaps they have changed the attachment since then? Or perhaps there are two versions, on magnetic and one screw on?
I use clear filters on most of my lenses.
Nanakamado
Member
I put one on my Sigma 17-50 and it's there since, but I don't use filters on longer lenses.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Some Old habits don't die. I still have L37c Nikon filters bought new in 1984 but no longer use these, but I do have a Marumi DHG MC Lens Protect on my lenses that don't have a long/deep throated hood (800's, 180-400).
The lens hood is the first line of defence, contingent on its length.
2 years ago, a 77mm marumi took one for team: saved the front element of my 70-200 f2.8E . This was not the first time a protective filter saved the but as importantly didn't derail the trip by losing a key lens...
Earlier discussions about filters fyi
bcgforums.com
bcgforums.com
bcgforums.com
The lens hood is the first line of defence, contingent on its length.
2 years ago, a 77mm marumi took one for team: saved the front element of my 70-200 f2.8E . This was not the first time a protective filter saved the but as importantly didn't derail the trip by losing a key lens...
Earlier discussions about filters fyi
Thom Hogan's article on Learn, Practice and Master
Hear you, i only use the the pro lens cleaning fluid and the super soft paper tissue that comes with it. Or my breath with a soft cotton cloth never micro fiber Never breath on a lens - Fungus..🦘
bcgforums.com
UV filters for protection?
I've always used a UV filter on non-telephoto glass but I just received a 24-70 2.8 and thinking of not filtering anymore. I feel that when paying for good glass, maybe I shouldn't put a filter unless I plan on roughing it. I've used hoya in the past and I don't see a difference, but to be fair...
bcgforums.com
Recommended UV Filter for Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6
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...
bcgforums.com
rick_reno
Member
No. My filter choice is some Saran wrap and a rubber band.
joe43
Well-known member
ghm10829
New member
I use them when I’m taking photos near the ocean. One has to be careful of sand and wind with grit and sand there. I have stopped using them elsewhere, and rely on my lens hood for protection.
RugglesZ9
Member
I"ve never noticed an impact on IQ from a clean, good quality UV or clear filter, have cleaned off enough dirty filters used in high dust areas. The risk of damage to the coating [or front edge] of a $2-3000 lens outweighs whatever imaginary loss of IQ I might experience. Having a good, clean filter on every lens I might use ensures one is in place when it is needed. One little ding or scratch in the edge will ruin your whole day, and it's cheap insurance.
Yes or clear helps protect lens element when out in the field
Many Nikon $2,000 and more lenses do not accept front screw in filters.
If a UV filter prevents some purple/magenta colours being recoded or creates a double highlight image then some of us regard this as real and not imaginary degradation of an affected image.
But maybe not as good value as "real" insurance at about $20 for a $2,000 lens for cover including all accidental damage, theft etc.
As Steve demonstrated in actual testing filter protection is usually negligible.
When I ran a home insurance claims unit some years ago I took a keen interest in claims for photographic equipment.
Claims for filter damage to the front element exceeded all other claims including dropping a lens or having it stolen by about two to one.
Even so everybody makes their own mind up.
Roy
Well-known member
Not in the studio.
But in the field lenses get dirty and cleaning a UV filter is better than scrubbing the coating from an expensive lens ...
