View Full Version : Filter for 24-70mm nikon
AutumnCurl
01-06-2012, 5:29pm
Hi,
My hubby brought me home a present of a 24-70mm nikon lens - but didn't get me a filter ( no drama), so what filter do people recommend? I was going to just get a clear protection one, but now I'm not so sure...
So what do you use ?
* my main concern is sand when i go to beach and the wind blows..
If you intend to utilise a neutral density or polarising filter on the lens to correct exposure under differing natural light conditions buy the best quality filters on the market.
If you want a filter to protect the lens, even if you buy the best on the market you will only degrade the performance of a superb lens.
AutumnCurl
01-06-2012, 5:41pm
i was looking at a "Hoya UV HD Filter" for outside use.
i was looking at a "Hoya UV HD Filter" for outside use.
Please tell me what function that filter will serve on that lens.
AutumnCurl
01-06-2012, 5:56pm
hopeful eliminate some light haze and protect from dust/dirt and other outside problems, however as i haven't used filters before i am not 100% sure.
a couple of hundred dollars on a filter is nothing in comparison to the lens price.
patrickv
01-06-2012, 6:01pm
Actually I found that when photographing the Sydney Harbour Bridge at night from Circular Quay, the lights on it were bluish without an UV filter, and white with it. (very surprising eh?)
Before observing this, I thought UV filters were optically completely useless on digital cameras. Now I have found a small use other that front element protection.
This happened with different lenses and camera bodies, mostly Canon.
ricktas
01-06-2012, 6:06pm
UV filters = waste of money.
UV filters, filter out UV light, which was an issue for film photography. Thanks to the filter on all digital camera sensors (except the new D800e), UV light is a non-issue for DIGITAL cameras. So your deigned use of 'hopefully eliminate some haze' is not going to work.
Buy a polariser instead.
AutumnCurl
01-06-2012, 6:09pm
my photo's normally have people in them so a cpl isn't a good idea unless i want blue tinted people :P
hopeful eliminate some light haze and protect from dust/dirt and other outside problems, however as i haven't used filters before i am not 100% sure.
a couple of hundred dollars on a filter is nothing in comparison to the lens price.
It will (allegedly) protect against dust, it will most likely do none of the other functions that you desire. It will most assuredly degrade image quality.
cpl only
Amen with the inclusion of high quality ND filters.
Actually I found that when photographing the Sydney Harbour Bridge at night from Circular Quay, the lights on it were bluish without an UV filter, and white with it. (very surprising eh?)
Before observing this, I thought UV filters were optically completely useless on digital cameras. Now I have found a small use other that front element protection.
This happened with different lenses and camera bodies, mostly Canon.
Not surprising at all actually, you stuck a filter on the front of your lens, failed to think about the inferior optics altering your white balance and then assumed that what the filter showed was correct.
ricktas
01-06-2012, 6:13pm
my photo's normally have people in them so a cpl isn't a good idea unless i want blue tinted people :P
Seriously??
OK. I suggest you start researching filters..in depth..a Polariser does not make people blue! A Polariser does just that, it polarises light. It reduces/eliminates reflection and increases contrast (which is how it makes some skies appear bluer), but it does not make people blue. I think you should refrain from buying ANY filters and do a heap of reading on how they work and what they do.
Lance B
01-06-2012, 9:38pm
That's correct, Rick. A polariser should not make people look blue at all! The only way this can occur is if the camera's auto WB is failing miserably as it should compensate for just about any filter put in front of the lens.
A UV filter may only help to protect the front element, but I have never used a filter for that purpose and never will. There are a number of articles that show that a UV filter can introduce unwanted flare, mostly in night scenes.
MissionMan
01-06-2012, 9:53pm
I use a neutral colour (Nikon) filter on my 24-70 & 70-200 and I have a CPL filter.
The NC filters are used primarily on the beach (sea spray) and the CPL is used for the same in bright light when I do kiteboarding photography.
If it wasn't for those uses, I probably wouldn't bother.
Tannin
01-06-2012, 10:20pm
Wow! You are certainly copping some flack in this thread, AutumnCurl. What did you do, reverse over someone's cat?
But don't worry about that. The rather short-tempered advice you are getting is actually pretty good. There are lots of good reasons not to have a clear or UV or skylight filter (I'll just say "clear" from now on) and only a couple of reasons why you should have one. We can start by taking it as read that most or all of what the anti-filter crowd have posted in this thread is on the money - it is very difficult to find examples where clear filters do anything good for digital images. In fact, I can't think of any examples, but maybe there are one or two I haven't thought of.
As the anti-filter crowd point out, a clear filter always introduces some image degradation. It can only reduce image quality, never increase it. BUT that image quality loss, under most circumstances and if your filter is a good one, is infinitesimally small. In 99% of your shots, you just won't be able to see the difference. Probably more like 99.9% of cases.
There is an excellent article you should read here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters That should put things into better perspective.
If you want to protect your lens front element, I say go right ahead. No-one will ever be able to tell the difference in your pictures so long as you don't buy a cheap rubbish one! Cheap filters are a disaster! One thing a filter might do to improve your photography is give you the confidence to shoot in bad conditions - and harsh conditions can produce some wonderful shots!
Finally, I might mention that I am a card-carrying member of the No Filter Party. I hardly ever use them. In fact, I have just one lens which I mount a clear filter on as routine, that's my expensive 24mm tilt-shift, and even with that one I usually unscrew the filter just before I press the shutter. Not necessary, sure, but it is the sort of lens that you can't use sensibly without spending 5-10 minutes messing about with it on a tripod focusing and adjusting the tilt and so on, so adding and removing a filter is no trouble. Yes, I have a lens cap but they fall off and the filter keeps my 24mm tilt-shift safe. So why not? (But I'll get expelled from the Party if Andrew finds out, so please keep this to yourself!)
Summary: don't be bullied into something you are not comfortable with. If you want a filter, get one!
With some more time to put things in perspective ---
My replies are directed primarily at the 24-70 Nikkor and that particular lens is a superb piece of gear that has been manufactured to give professional results.
Going by anything and everything that I have seen written about that lens ( don't own one so I can't be 100% authoritative about it ) the addition of clear filters are one way of introducing or exaggerating flair and haziness to images under harsh conditions. You have said in another post that you are considering a D800 as a camera and the combination of that lens and body will (should) result in outstanding images. If your desire is to create outstanding images with that level of gear then you need to be a little wary of introducing glass elements that will increase flair and reduce the micro contrast levels available.
If you are not so concerned about the level of quality of the images produced, go ahead and fit a filter for protection but then I wonder why you need that lens above many very capable and cheaper alternatives.
On to the subject of protection of the lens by using a clear filter. By your scenario of being at the beach and worrying about the lens being affected by wind blown sand you possibly should think a few things through.
From the moment you take your camera from the bag and then remove your lens cap your gear is at the mercy of the elements. How many photographs will you be able to take before the sand / salt spray has built up enough to degrade the image quality either with a filter on or off?
I will hazard a guess that it will be the same number with or without a filter.
OK, that means that either the filter or lens needs cleaning in order to resume photographing to get the best possible images. If you are attempting to clean either the front lens element or the filter "in the field" in order to continue photographing we have two ways of doing it. We can grab the loose corner of our T-shirt and give the filter or lens the once over. Just as soon as you have done that you will probably realise that your T-shirt that you put on clean that morning also has a high level of sand and salt spray attached to it and has done nothing for either the cleanliness or longevity of either the lens or the filter.
We now have the situation where photography cannot recommence due to degrade optical performance due to smeared salt and sand on the lens or filter. At the same time we have probably damaged the surface of either the lens or the filter and while it is easier to write off a $150.00 filter than the front lens element I really have to ask why you would want to do either. Much the same applies if you are trying to clean either the lens or the filter with all the proper gear rather than your T-shirt "in the field" because if the conditions are that bad you are only subjecting that cleaning gear to the same bad things that stopped you photographing in the first place.
So, cleaning either the filter or lens should be done in a professional manner that befits either piece of gear. That rules out the "beach side wipe" and puts us back in the realms of a nice clean room at home to do the job or booking the gear into the local camera repair facility for a service. Either way, if done properly the cleaning should not harm the lens or filter and should result in image quality being restored to the levels that the camera and lens are capable of --- except --- we still have that other bit of glass on the front of the lens that will reduce image quality.
If you are worried about impact damage from flying sand on the front element of the lens then I suggest that you need to consider a couple of things, firstly if there is the likelihood of damage to the gear, do you really need to be trying to take professional quality photos under those conditions. After all, that is why you bought the professional quality gear isn't it.
Secondly, if you are unlucky enough to have sand blast the lens or filter to such a degree that either is damaged then unless you really want to keep photographing and have multiple filters in your kit to replace the damaged item then photography that will get you professional quality photos is over for the day.
OK, if you want to use a filter as a form of insurance for the front element of that lens go for it but I would rather think about getting professional level images that the gear is capable of at another time ( no sand or spray ) and not using a filter along with adequate insurance on the equipment in case of "disasters". You do have your gear insured don't you? After all, the premium is not really much in the scheme of things when compared to the price of your lens/es and body/ies.
geoffsta
02-06-2012, 6:32am
@ I @ M... I think Arthurking is starting to rubb off on you. :D
Seriously AutumnCurl.
A screw on CPL filter is a must. Followed by a set of Cokin P series ND and gradual filters. All cheap as chips on fleabay.
Whooah there Andrew!
First, the image degradation introduced by a good quality clear filter is very, very small. You've completely ignored the size of the IQ reduction, and that's a very relevant factor here. What you are saying is like saying that a second wing mirror will degrade your fuel economy - yes, it's absolutely true, technically, but most people would never be able to tell the difference. Under nearly all circumstances, the difference is too small to worry about - and where we are looking straight into the sun for some reason, one can always take the filter off for that shot.
Secondly, what photographer would be so ultra-careful about their gear as to put a clear filter on, despite knowing that it costs a fair bit and will (however insignificantly) lower their picture quality but so sloppy about their gear as to clean a sand-blown lens/filter with a tee-shirt? That's just not a realistic scenario.
And third, it really doesn't make any sense to list three (and only three) lens cleaning solutions, two of which (the dirty tee-shirt and hiring a professional for a lens clean!) are not on the sensible photographer's menu anyway. You need to get out of the studio a bit! People who work outdoors in all sorts of conditions soon learn a range of cleaning techniques:
Indoors at home or in the studio with puffer, cleaning tissues and (if desired) cleaning fluid or spray
Improvised clean(ish) place (in the car, in the shelter of a building, etc.), typically with lens pen or puffer and tissue or cloth
Outdoors as necessary. Turn your back to the wind and clean with your breath, soft brush on the lens pen, and cloth. (Substitute lens tissue if desired, but cloths work better and are more practical, just so long as you keep them clean and have spares to hand if needed.) This last method is the one which gets used most often if you work outdoors in the bush for any length of time, and with care it is perfectly safe. I make a point of always wearing shirts with two top pockets when I'm working. In the right-hand pocket I put a 77mm CPL, in the left-hand one (where it is easy to reach with my right hand) a lens pen and a lens cleaning cloth. (Or sometimes tissues.)
Perhaps I could add a fourth method, only suitable in desperate circumstances like these.
http://tannin.net.au/other/ap2/0911/beware/110710-085602-.jpg
That shot was taken about this time last year, literally a handful of seconds after cleaning the lens. It's not worth having, obviously, other than as an indication of the conditions. In fact conditions were so bad that you simply couldn't face into the wind or anywhere near that direction without picking up flying salt spray. And I spent two full days in those conditions looking for my spot and waiting for my moment.
The gear took a hammering. (As did I!) It soon became obvious that there was no possible way to keep my front elements clean using the normal methods. A lens cloth would be soaked within a few minutes. So I improvised: Into each large pocket of my raincoat, I put a clean tea-towel. Not the idea thing, but by swapping the towels over for fresh ones every now and again (I always keep half a dozen in the car, though not for this purpose) I was able to take pictures.
Yes, I was a bit worried about what was happening to my expensive lenses, but I had come down with a dose of Get The Shot fever (as any good photographer should from time to time) and it turned out that they took no harm - the worst effect wasn't the lens front element, it was the build-up of salt all over the lens barrels and camera bodies. Not knowing what else to do, I dealt with that when I got home using warm, damp tea-towels to lift the salt with a dry one and a brushing to finish. All the cameras and lenses still work perfectly.
As for the purpose of exposing my gear (and myself!) to that terrible weather, it was this:
http://tannin.net.au/upload/11/110710-093745-rfvpc.jpg
I sold that picture the other day, and for a tidy price, but mostly I just like looking at it and remembering the wild, wild weekend of weather on the western Victorian coast that led to those incredible waves.
PS: I didn't use a clear filter!
Oh, and I should mention that the effect of a good quality clear filter is so small that some of the very, very best lenses money can buy come with what amounts to a clear filter permanently mounted as the first element. Yes, the big white $10,000 and $12,000 L Series primes - lenses like the 400/2.8 and the 600/4 - have a plain glass front element with no optical purpose: it is purely there to protect the (very expensive!) first optical element. If you should be so unfortunate as to damage your front element, the replacement part is worth only a little, where the real front element might cost five or six thousand to replace.
Having argued the case for filters at some length now, honestly compels me to say that, when you get right down to taking pictures, I can't quite bring myself to do something (put a filter on) that I know will reduce my image quality. (Even though I'll never be able to see that difference 'cause it is so small.) This is not logical. So shoot me!
arthurking83
02-06-2012, 3:39pm
On the whole I have to say I agree with Tony here .. in that if the OP seems to think that a filter is going to 'protect' the multi thousand dollar lens in difficult conditions, then by all means get one.
But it's important to understand fully how or why a filter can cause detrimental effects to any images.
Also, a CPL won't produce a blue cast to skin tones, unless there is an anomaly with the Auto WB from the camera.. it does happen(happens to me regularly!)
If you shoot two scenes with and without any filters and then set WB (as should really be done) in post, the images will have (close enough too) equal colour balance.
UV filters do nothing in terms of cutting UV transmission to the sensor. This is already done at the sensor.
They do cut UV transmission through the lens of course, but this is of no consequence to the image.
If images turned from blue to white via the use a a UV filter, then it may have most likely been a warming filter too(Skylight) as well as UV.
Irrespective of whether you fit a UV cut filter to your lens, the UV wavelength is 99.9999% cut due to the filter pack fitted in front of the sensor.
To the OP.. protection filters are generally a waste of time, and don't really protect the lens in the way you may think they do.
Many lenses have withstood the test of time year in year out and have zero detrimental effects upon them caused by environmental harshness.
There could be an argument made where the conditions are so harsh/hard/despicable .. say in a sandstorm situation(eg. rally car driving) or any other situation where sand may affect your lens, but the reality is that unless it's extremely harsh, the lens will survive intact quite well.
Testament to this is my trusty 'ol Sigma 10-20mm lens. While it's cost is nowhere near anything like the Nikon 24-70mm, I have to say I've never been precious about keeping it safe.
Only filters it's ever seen are polarisers and graduated ND's ... ie,. for effects!
It's been to many seaside shoots and almost as many desert locations in the few years I've had it .. and it still shoots fine, images still look as they did when I first got the lens years ago.
Lens looks fine. It's been drenched a few times(drizzle turned to rain), and dropped in grassy paddocks(not yet onto rocks or sand), on a couple of occasions.... You wouldn't really know it from the images it still captures.
BUT!! .. it has been knocked about for many years both in the bag and whilst on the camera, or sitting on the front seat of the car .. or whatever.
The lens does now need a service. I think the lens elements may be slightly out of alignment, as in some situations I get slight blurring on the RHS of the image relative to the LHS.
ie. the need to protect the lens from one set of environmental parameters doesn't necessarily mean that the lens is 'protected'.
My advice would be to use a lens hood to minimise flare situations, and also for bump protection and enjoy the lens for what it's capable of.
(I would have preferred to keep this reply short) but to answer Tony's(Tannin) last comment about this point that some lenses having a clear protective filter(meniscus) at the very front of the lens .. this is true, and some lenses HAVE to have a filter in place or they simply can't focus properly too!
The difference between these specific lenses and most normal lenses(such as your 24-70) .. is that the lenses that have these filters fitted have been designed to operate correctly(focus the light rays correctly) with these filters fitted. If you remove these dedicated filters, the lens will lose some quality in the final image.
ie. this is the opposite of the situation described by others when using filters over your lens.
Any introduced/or omitted optical element will have an effect on the image(in general meaning sharpness) at the sensor.
My belief is that these filters have a lower resistance to wear and tear .. so by the time you've purchased the best quality filter that produces the least image degrading effect, the amount of money that you may end up spending on replacing the damaged filter could end up costing as much as the lens over the course of time that you own the lens.
So, as a result, you either purchase lower quality filters so that it doesn't cost you too much as you replace the filters, but you risk losing more image quality as a result.
Or you purchase more expensive filters find that as they wear you may replace it say every two years.... and in the 10 years that you've owned the lens, will have spent close to the same amount of money on the filters as you would have on a second hand replacement lens.... or even more than it may cost to replace the front lens element on the lens.
Lance B
02-06-2012, 3:56pm
Oh, and I should mention that the effect of a good quality clear filter is so small that some of the very, very best lenses money can buy come with what amounts to a clear filter permanently mounted as the first element. Yes, the big white $10,000 and $12,000 L Series primes - lenses like the 400/2.8 and the 600/4 - have a plain glass front element with no optical purpose: it is purely there to protect the (very expensive!) first optical element. If you should be so unfortunate as to damage your front element, the replacement part is worth only a little, where the real front element might cost five or six thousand to replace.
Having argued the case for filters at some length now, honestly compels me to say that, when you get right down to taking pictures, I can't quite bring myself to do something (put a filter on) that I know will reduce my image quality. (Even though I'll never be able to see that difference 'cause it is so small.) This is not logical. So shoot me!
The thing with the filters on those long lenses is that they were designed into the optical path in the first place, ie the lens was designed with those front clear elements in mind. Filters are not really part of the lens design for all other lenses which do not incorporate a protective filter like the lenses you describe.
Having said all that, filters do make very little difference to the image quality and as you say most would not ever see the difference. However, as Murphy's law will dictate just when you are taking that shot of a lifetime photo, a filter may cause an issue.
At the end of the day, it is up to the individual what they want to do, filter or no filter and there are pros and cons for either stance. I do not use protective filters and the only filters I use are a polariser or ND grads.
(I would have preferred to keep this reply short) but to answer Tony's(Tannin) last comment about this point that some lenses having a clear protective filter(meniscus) at the very front of the lens .. this is true, and some lenses HAVE to have a filter in place or they simply can't focus properly too!
Arthur surely the only reason Canon's long lenses have a clear glass filter built in on the front is to protect the front element. Nothing to do with focussing.
First, the image degradation introduced by a good quality clear filter is very, very small. You've completely ignored the size of the IQ reduction, and that's a very relevant factor here. What you are saying is like saying that a second wing mirror will degrade your fuel economy - yes, it's absolutely true, technically, but most people would never be able to tell the difference. Under nearly all circumstances, the difference is too small to worry about - and where we are looking straight into the sun for some reason, one can always take the filter off for that shot.
No, I have not ignored the size of the IQ reduction introduced by fitting clear filters to a 24-70 Nikkor which is the lens that the thread is all about.
I have very deliberately confined my comments to that lens and the included a specific camera body as well seeing as AutumnCurl desires to own that body.
If you are so confident that the Nikkor 24-70 image quality is only very slightly affected by the fitting of a filter then please show us by how much it is affected. Percentages are fine seeing as you chose to use them to start with but images would be better. My views are based upon viewing multiple examples of with and without filter images with that lens encompassing the dirt cheap to the ultra expensive filters and they show marked IQ decay under many situations.
Secondly, what photographer would be so ultra-careful about their gear as to put a clear filter on, despite knowing that it costs a fair bit and will (however insignificantly) lower their picture quality but so sloppy about their gear as to clean a sand-blown lens/filter with a tee-shirt? That's just not a realistic scenario.
I don't consider it unrealistic at all after I have seen that same procedure done by a photographer who will remain nameless and who should have known better but did just that and then blamed clear filters for bad images.
and where we are looking straight into the sun for some reason, one can always take the filter off for that shot.
Yes, of course that can be, and in the case of this lens, should be done. But why is the filter on the lens in the first place then? Going by AutumnCurls need for the filter to provide protection at the same time as cutting haze then we have just negated the protection factor as well.
And third, it really doesn't make any sense to list three (and only three) lens cleaning solutions,
I feel that listing the best way to do it is a very relevant point.
I feel that there are several good ways of doing it but as far as I am concerned if we are chasing the best possible IQ from camera and lens then we need to do everything the best way. If the OP is faced with constant or steady wind blown sand or salt then on the site cleaning is going to be very repetitive and more likely than not going to result in less than optimal images.
You need to get out of the studio a bit! People who work outdoors in all sorts of conditions soon learn a range of cleaning techniques:
Trust me, I do get outdoors far more than you might imagine. Perhaps you should venture into a studio one day ----
I still reckon that if AutumnCurl wants to utilise her top of the range gear to the best of its ability ( isn't that what we all want to do? ) then fitting clear filters to that lens is not the right choice. After all it would be very easy to pay less money for gear by buying cheaper Nikon products or other brands to obtain lesser quality results rather than hindering the good gear with clear filters that are known to not produce optimal results.
No, I am not going to respond about other lenses needing or having protective elements built in as standard because they simply are not part of the original post where advice was asked for about one particular lens.
Image degradation by using a filter is irrelevant, apart from the additional possibility of flare. If someone was that #### about image quality, I doubt they'd be using a zoom lens in the first place. I don't use them, but plenty do. Damage to the front element rarely has an affect on image quality, it's the rear element you need to worry about.
Lance B
02-06-2012, 10:37pm
Arthur surely the only reason Canon's long lenses have a clear glass filter built in on the front is to protect the front element. Nothing to do with focussing.
Not the front element, but the Nikon has a clear drop in filter is all their long lenses which is required for normal functionality of focus, I do believe. I think that the Canon lenses are the same. This drop in filter can be changed for a polariser or ND filters etc. This is different from the front filter glass which is basically a lens protector as suggested. However, as I stated in another post of mine, this front element (as is the drop in filter) are an intrinsic part of the whole lens system and are designed to be part of the optical path, which is different from an aftermarket screw on filter which was not designed as part of the lens.
That's all true Lance, but they wouldn't add a clear filter to the front of the lens for that reason would they?
Lance B
02-06-2012, 11:04pm
Image degradation by using a filter is irrelevant, apart from the additional possibility of flare. If someone was that #### about image quality, I doubt they'd be using a zoom lens in the first place. I don't use them, but plenty do. Damage to the front element rarely has an affect on image quality, it's the rear element you need to worry about.
All very well, but if all you have is a zoom, which is already a compromise in most cases, then why possibly degrade it further by putting a filter in front? Not everyone can afford a prime and a multitude of them to cover the range of a zoom and if you had a multitude of primes covering the range then imagine the cost of all those front filters!
The whole debate is becoming a little bit over the top. The fact is, a filter will have some impact and it is up to the individual whether they use one or not. Those that are advocating not using a filter are just pointing out that there may be some detrimental effects of using a filter and the cost of putting one on a lens may be incongruent with the cost of a normal zoom. Some of these filters can cost a 1/4 to 1/3rd of the price of a zoom and as such seem an extravagance. If you have a good quality zoom, like the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 being discussed, then you would want to put the best you can on it and a top quality 77mm UV filter can be $70. If it's only one lens, then it may not be an issue, but if you have a few lenses then the extra cost of UV filters would end up outweighing the benefit of any very unlikely front element damage. If you have 5 lenses, then that could be near $300+ worth of filters and a replacement front element may not cost much more than that in the very unlikely event that you damage it. In some instances, the total filter outlay for your complete lens system may be more than the cost of a complete new lens! Then if you want a polariser, you have to add that on the cost as well. And, these lenses are a lot tougher than most people think as the coatings they put on them these days is very robust.
Shop owners love filters as they make more profit on those than they do on some of the lenses they sell. I think it amusing that people haggle about the cost of a lens and camera combo trying to knock it down by $50 and then gladly paying for a filter which costs more than what they saved!
I have no issue with people using filters as they probably really don't make any difference to most users, but at least be informed with your purchase and that is all I am trying to do here.
I have no issue with people using filters as they probably really don't make any difference to most users, but at least be informed with your purchase and that is all I am trying to do here.
Sounds fair to me.
ponda51
07-06-2012, 8:10pm
thanks for the conversations about filters - had normally just got one - now asking myself why I have one!! Even if I am not a professional!
(Even though I'll never be able to see that difference 'cause it is so small.) This is not logical. So shoot me!
I agree with everything you've posted and also never run clear filters. The last straw for me was after I had a stack of rally photos almost ruined by light reflecting between the front element and the UV filter I was running. It was an expensive filter and had all the right coatings, but it still couldn't handle bright spot lights right at the lens.
I pretty much always have a CPL on my lenses these days anyhow so any other filter for "protection" would be redundant.
My advice to people who want to run filters for "protection" is to use that money for insurance on the gear. This is far more beneficial than a clear filter.
My advice to people who want to run filters for "protection" is to use that money for insurance on the gear. This is far more beneficial than a clear filter.
What a very sensible idea.
Lance B
11-06-2012, 4:52pm
My advice to people who want to run filters for "protection" is to use that money for insurance on the gear. This is far more beneficial than a clear filter.
That is sort of what I said in my post, but in a long winded way:
"Some of these filters can cost a 1/4 to 1/3rd of the price of a zoom and as such seem an extravagance. If you have a good quality zoom, like the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 being discussed, then you would want to put the best you can on it and a top quality 77mm UV filter can be $70. If it's only one lens, then it may not be an issue, but if you have a few lenses then the extra cost of UV filters would end up outweighing the benefit of any very unlikely front element damage. If you have 5 lenses, then that could be near $300+ worth of filters and a replacement front element may not cost much more than that in the very unlikely event that you damage it. In some instances, the total filter outlay for your complete lens system may be more than the cost of a complete new lens! Then if you want a polariser, you have to add that on the cost as well. And, these lenses are a lot tougher than most people think as the coatings they put on them these days is very robust."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.