Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 5, 2007, 10:46 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Just purchased Hoya Pro 1 Digital MC Clear Protectors for my 55-200 VR (52mm)and Sigma 18-55 EX DC Macro (72mm). The cost was minimal; the 52mm @ $21.81 and the 72mm @ $39.33 both from 2filter.com.

BTW - lovin both of these lenses!!


mjgoetz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2007, 8:24 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

Lens cap is what you should use to protect the front lens. Filters will make your lenses less sharp.

Lenshoods also help protect the lenses and make your pictures better by shading sun light.

I never use filters on my dslr lenses but use lenscap all the time when not shooting.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 5:05 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

This question comes and goes and there are always people for and against. However, people who state that a UV degrades the image never seem to post photos with it on and off to prove their point. I've been using Nikons for 25 years and have always had a UV filter on.Ten years backI dropped the 80/200 on a tiled floor end first and smashed the UV but the lens was unscathed. I've also replaced several UV's which have become scratched, but of course the lens isn't affected. I write for magazines, so quality is important to me in my work, but I've never had a photo refused as being of insufficient quality because of a UV. A lens hood, especially the new ones supplied with the lenses, is also a good protective element and is essential to avoid flare in sunny conditions. Strangely, the only lens I have to which I can't fit a UV is my most expensive, the 200/400. Also, my cameras and lenses live in hostile conditions sometimes with dust and dirt, so there is another reason.

In conclusion, I prefer the safety route. I have noticed no difference myself and will continue to use them, but since time immemorial I have only used Hoya. Nikon filters are too expensive frankly and no better than Hoya. I hear good reports of B&H's own but I am a creature of habit. You pays your money and you takes your choice, as they say.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 7:33 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Bob Nichol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Ontario Canada
Posts: 822
Default

Check out http://home.c2i.net/jostein.oksne/Utstyr/filters.htm for an actual test of the effects of filters on sharpness.
Bob Nichol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 3:31 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

An interesting article Bob, but where are the actual photos for comparison? If you go microscopic and anal yes you might see a difference, and a difference I am sure there has to be, but all I am querying is whether it is really noticeable to the human eye. I think I'll get the 200/400 out on a tripodwhen it stops raining one day and do a comparison with blow ups of 19/13. That's the biggestI can go here. Incidentally, I have a 36"x24" print of a shot I took on a Fuji 800 ASA pro film with my F90Xback in 1991 here and there the grain and imperfections are verynoticeable, but that is the film, not the camera or lens. That wouldn't happen today, so far has technology advanced. No, I'll stick with the UV just the same.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 11:15 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Default

I can easily prove to you that a good filter can reduce the quality of the image. I use Hoya Pro1 HMC UV (o) filter and I find that it gives more flare when I shoot some night scenes, removing it may not completely remove the flare but reduced the flare image.

Yes, I dont trade safety for my expensive glass over image quality. Only when I have to I take the filter off but leave my hood on to take some shots knowing there will be flare situations.

cameranserai wrote:
Quote:
This question comes and goes and there are always people for and against. However, people who state that a UV degrades the image never seem to post photos with it on and off to prove their point. I've been using Nikons for 25 years and have always had a UV filter on.Ten years backI dropped the 80/200 on a tiled floor end first and smashed the UV but the lens was unscathed. I've also replaced several UV's which have become scratched, but of course the lens isn't affected. I write for magazines, so quality is important to me in my work, but I've never had a photo refused as being of insufficient quality because of a UV. A lens hood, especially the new ones supplied with the lenses, is also a good protective element and is essential to avoid flare in sunny conditions. Strangely, the only lens I have to which I can't fit a UV is my most expensive, the 200/400. Also, my cameras and lenses live in hostile conditions sometimes with dust and dirt, so there is another reason.

In conclusion, I prefer the safety route. I have noticed no difference myself and will continue to use them, but since time immemorial I have only used Hoya. Nikon filters are too expensive frankly and no better than Hoya. I hear good reports of B&H's own but I am a creature of habit. You pays your money and you takes your choice, as they say.
nexusworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 3:06 PM   #17
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Ironically, I just finished responding to a post on another forum from a user wanting to know why he had some green spots in the sky over a bridge photographed at night, when I noticed this thread (I don't read all of them).

They were ghosts from some bright green lights on the bridge itself. So, the very first question I asked was if a filter was on it (since the lens was of pretty high quality).

Yep, he had a "high quality, multi-coated UV/Haze filter" on the lens for protection (although he didn't mention the brand). I suggested that he remove it if shooting into bright lights like that since it's the most likely cause of his problem (this isn't the first time I've seen that). ;-)

I can't seem to find the link to a pretty good article I read a while back showing optical degradation from filters with lots of samples, but a quick google search found this one with some examples:

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/filterflare.html

Here is a Sunday Morning Photographer article on our site that discusses this issue, too:

The Filter Flare Factor by Mike Johnston


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:44 PM.