Filter advice

H

h18ant

Messages
11
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I'm sure this has been asked many times before but I haven't managed to find an answer after a lot of seraching. Maybe I'm just not very good at searching! :lol:

The question is this - I have a D90 18-105 VR kit arriving soon and am sourcing a 70-300 vr lens also. I'm off on safari soon and want to make sure that I look after my kit. I'm going to find a good rucksack/bag soon, probably Lowepro and need to get a beanbag, but the thing I am unsure on is how to protect the lenses and also whether or not to get protective filters for them?

Any advice would be great, is there anything else I ought to think about taking that's essential?

Cheers,

Ant
 
Hi Ant, and welcome to TP forums!

I'll leave the filters advice for someone in a better position to answer but, with regard to the filters, the general opinion around here is that you ought to only buy "protective"/UV filters which are sufficiently high quality (see: expensive) so as to not degrade the image quality of an otherwise good kit. Sticking a cheapo piece of glass over your lens will frustrate you - so any UV filter should be a decent piece of hardware.
 
I recently bought a Hoya Pro-1D Protector filter for my 18-200VR lens to protect it while on holiday and on the first day of holiday I banged the lens (not hard) but enough to mark the filter. If I hadn't bought the filter, then lens would be scratched :'(

I find the Hoya Pro-1D Protector pretty good value for money and I cannot see any negative impact on the IQ.

It's true to say that there are many fakes floating around on that well known auction site, but I can recommend a seller there called Crooked Imaging (ignore the shady reference in the name, he's a proper UK shop!) and his filters are the pukka thing and at good prices with free postage too. Think he has a website too.

Might suggest a UV or Protector filter for general protection use, plus for Safari I would say a good Polarizer would also be worth the investment, helping to keep the skies blue in landscape shots.
 
Another for buy good quality filters. I use Hoya HD.

Regards

Chris
 
I've been on 5 safari holidays, never used a filter, always used the hood, never had a mark on a front element.

Filter truths -
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will degrade image quality to some extent.
  • That degradation will be more easily visible in some situations than others.
  • The more a filter costs, the less degradation tends to happen.
  • A lens hood will improve image quality in most situations.
  • A lens hood provides more protection against impact than a thin piece of glass.
 
hollis_f said:
I've been on 5 safari holidays, never used a filter, always used the hood, never had a mark on a front element.

Filter truths -
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will degrade image quality to some extent.
  • That degradation will be more easily visible in some situations than others.
  • The more a filter costs, the less degradation tends to happen.
  • A lens hood will improve image quality in most situations.
  • A lens hood provides more protection against impact than a thin piece of glass.
Click to expand...


Not totally correct I'm afraid.

Most filters are exceedingly tough and a hood would not stand a chance if hit with any force or more likely you walked or fell into something hard!

My Daughter tripped in the woods and fell over with the D300, which had the 18 - 200 VR lens on, along with a filter and hood. The hood was in many pieces, the filter did not even have a mark on it!

There is of course lots of debate about filters degrading the lens quality. If you use a high quality filter I have yet to see any difference between having one on and not having one on!

However, buy cheap and you will wonder what is the point of having it!

Each to his own and I respect anyones opinion if they do not want to use a filter.

Best regards

Chris
 
G2EWS said:
My Daughter tripped in the woods and fell over with the D300, which had the 18 - 200 VR lens on, along with a filter and hood. The hood was in many pieces, the filter did not even have a mark on it!
Click to expand...

So the lens hood did its job and prevented the lens from being damaged. Try doing the same with just a filter.

Most filters are exceedingly tough and a hood would not stand a chance if hit with any force or more likely you walked or fell into something hard!
Click to expand...

Most filters are not extremely tough. They're thin bits of glass. Proper lens hoods are really tough. In any sort of collision the hood will deform, thus absorbing the energy of the collision. A filter will hardly absorb any energy. If the impact is sufficiently energetic then it will shatter, flinging sharp splinters at your front element.
 
the arguments are off track - just use a filter AND a hood

I prefer a UV to a "Protector" - a laboratory test of UV filters is ..."here"

Hoya in the top 3 places....I've been searching prices for a new 72mm UV

dont buy on eBay - too many fakes - try Camera King on Amazon
52mm Hoya Pro-1 Digital MC UV at £17.24+£4pp

or College Cameras in UK at £24 +pp or Clifton at £29
 
hollis_f said:
I've been on 5 safari holidays, never used a filter, always used the hood, never had a mark on a front element.

Filter truths -
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will degrade image quality to some extent.
  • That degradation will be more easily visible in some situations than others.
  • The more a filter costs, the less degradation tends to happen.
  • A lens hood will improve image quality in most situations.
  • A lens hood provides more protection against impact than a thin piece of glass.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me :thumbs:

Some comparison pictures here taken with and without various filters including the most expensive, showing what they do to image quality http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=212297
 
hollis_f said:
Er, why?
Click to expand...

do a lot of landscapes, and always led to believe that a UV would cut out some of the haze in the distance

advertising hype maybe - but prefer to put "something" on the lens - as well as a hood............:shrug:
 
Yardbent said:
do a lot of landscapes, and always led to believe that a UV would cut out some of the haze in the distance

advertising hype maybe - but prefer to put "something" on the lens - as well as a hood............:shrug:
Click to expand...

UV is a film problem. Allegedly - I have never experienced it. Very little UV gets through a modern multi-element lens anyway. And digital cameras have strong UV and IR filters over the sensor.

The whole filters thing is driven by sales people. There is massive profit margin in them.

Did you click on the link I posted above?
 
I have filters on all of my lenses that'll take them.

I think that the chances of a filter causing any noticeable image degradation are quite small whereas the chances of getting crap on your front element are probably quite high. The beauty of having a relatively cheap filter on the front of your lens it that you can give it a wipe with whatever you have with you and not worry too much about scratching it. That's a blessing in an environment where there's likely to be dust, sand or water on your lens or whatever is on the end of it.

I wouldn't put to much faith in a filter as impact protection though, but as a wipe clean and don't worry too much about it thing I think they're great.
 
Yes, but with all respect to Hoppy that is a very specific shot and even if you do shoot into a light you can always take the filter off and put it back on later.
 
woof woof said:
Yes, but with all respect to Hoppy that is a very specific shot and even if you do shoot into a light you can always take the filter off and put it back on later.
Click to expand...

Test pictures are specific by definition. But I don't think those shots are unrepresentative of any night scene, or a sunset, and of course the same effect is happening all the time, in every scene to a certain exyent - you just don't fully appreciate it without actually doing an A vs B direct comparison. And nobody ever does that.

You can't see that reflection effect through the viewfinder as it only happens off the sensor. So the only time you can see it at the time of taking is by checking the LCD carefully - it's very easy to miss.

Fit a protection filter if you like, but don't believe that it has no effect on image quality. It's not like the saleman told you, or like so many people blindly repeat without actually checking.

Edit: I think the best filters are Hoya HD. Optically of very high quality, stronger glass, the best coatings with that easy-clean surface - mainly dust doesn't stick to them so easily.
 
I've taken many shots into light and containing light sources over decades with many different cameras without the extreme effects you demonstrated in your test. I personally don't think that filters cause too many real world real shot issues but as you point out in some situations they can and in those situations you can take the thing off.
 
woof woof said:
I've taken many shots into light and containing light sources over decades with many different cameras without the extreme effects you demonstrated in your test. I personally don't think that filters cause too many real world real shot issues but as you point out in some situations they can and in those situations you can take the thing off.
Click to expand...

That's with film - completely different. Just try a few night shots with and without a filter - on digital. And a sunset.

I'm not saying filters ruin every picture - of course they don't. But to claim that filters don't make any noticeable difference, ever, is also untrue. That's the only point I want to make. Everybody goes looking for sharpness issues with filters, but they're generally pretty good there - the problem is ghosting and flare.

Those test pictures I made are not an exaggeration, nor I would say untypical. I could have made them far worse - try photographing car headlights against a dark background, or maybe a bright security light at night. That gets horrendous, but untypical and unrepresentative.

:)
 
hollis_f said:
So the lens hood did its job and prevented the lens from being damaged. Try doing the same with just a filter.



Most filters are not extremely tough. They're thin bits of glass. Proper lens hoods are really tough. In any sort of collision the hood will deform, thus absorbing the energy of the collision. A filter will hardly absorb any energy. If the impact is sufficiently energetic then it will shatter, flinging sharp splinters at your front element.
Click to expand...

Hi Hollis,

We are obviously diametrically opposed on this one. I don't think that is a problem as it is what makes debates like this interesting.

I am totally convinced that had my Daughter not had a filter on, the lens would have been damaged. As mentioned, most filters are extremely tough and shattering is very unlikely to happen.

However, no problems with your point of view.

Best regards

Chris
 
Doesn't it also depend on how 'deep' the lens hood is?

For example, on my 16-85, it's fairly wide and shallow, and whilst I feel comfortable knowing that my lens is protected, it's not going to do much if something goes right into the front of it is it? It's all very well saying, oh the lens hood does this that and the other, but if something 'longer' than the depth of the hood impacts the lens/filter, then it'll damage it. No arguments there.

However on my new Tokina 50-135mm, the hood is very deep, and it would take a lot for something to break the front element or filter, and as such I'd feel a little safer if i didn't have a filter on
 
dougiew said:
John
I'm looking at the same Marumi DHG Polarizer filter (but 72mm) but it looks a bit cheaper here:
http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog...al-dhg-filters-marumi-circular-polarizing-cpl
You know how us Scots love a bargain!..Cheers :thumbs:..Dougie
Click to expand...

just so we're comparing the same apples ...........
h18ant has a 67mm filter - i deduce
you want a 72mm - same as me for my Sigma 17-70
BUT your link is to a 67mm at MicroGlobe

nevertheless - I found a 72mm DHG C-PL at Clifton @ £51.10 +pp
and at MicroGlobe is £39.21 - so thanks for the tip-off........:thumbs:

have you dealt with MicroGlobe before?......
 
justinitus said:
I recently bought a Hoya Pro-1D Protector filter for my 18-200VR lens to protect it while on holiday and on the first day of holiday I banged the lens (not hard) but enough to mark the filter. If I hadn't bought the filter, then lens would be scratched
Click to expand...

My wife almost scratched my lens, had not for the filter, back in Turkey, against some rocks while walking. The 18-55mm does not have a hood. Walking in the woods sometimes branches brush against the filter. I'd rather they brush against the filter than the glass itself.

Best thing to do is to take a few test shots and see if you can tell the difference.
 
Yardbent said:
just so we're comparing the same apples ...........
h18ant has a 67mm filter - i deduce
you want a 72mm - same as me for my Sigma 17-70
BUT your link is to a 67mm at MicroGlobe

nevertheless - I found a 72mm DHG C-PL at Clifton @ £51.10 +pp
and at MicroGlobe is £39.21 - so thanks for the tip-off........:thumbs:

have you dealt with MicroGlobe before?......
Click to expand...

Hi John

Yes I know I pointed to the 67mm for the guy who was looking for a 67mm....confusing I know! I haven't dealt with Microglobe before but they've got some good reports on here so might just give them a punt at £42 all in? There's a link to a review of CPLs on here at Lenstip and the Marumi DHG actually comes out 4th above the Pro1 CPL which came 7th! The Marumi DHG 'Super' came out first so they seem OK.

Get my hands on my new Sigma 17-70 OS tomorrow so need to get something soon! :D

Cheers

Dougie
 
Yardbent said:
the sigma is a big son of a bitch......:lol:...enjoy
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm sure i will! How do you find the 17-70 then? First Sigma lens I've bought so looking forward to it. Get's very good reviews - both the old version and new OS versions. :)

Decided to go for the Microglobe Marumi DHG CPL so let you know how it is. Made your mind up yet..?
 
dougiew said:
Thanks, I'm sure i will! How do you find the 17-70 then? ..............Decided to go for the Microglobe Marumi DHG CPL so let you know how it is. Made your mind up yet..?
Click to expand...

done a bit with the Sigma - not really any good weather here ATM
did cause the camera to be front-heavy but got a battery grip here at a good price so now ok ...:thumbs:

came with a bog-standard Kenko UV [kept lens clean ok] but decided to replace - which started this whole "filter search" nonsense

anyway decided on 72mm MARUMI in DHG C-PL, a Protector, and an ND8

if I can sell my Hoya Pro-1 MC C-PL in 52mm -:wave:- I'll replace that with a Marumi too

yeah - let me know how you get along.......
 
Yardbent said:
done a bit with the Sigma - not really any good weather here ATM
did cause the camera to be front-heavy but got a battery grip here at a good price so now ok ...:thumbs:

came with a bog-standard Kenko UV [kept lens clean ok] but decided to replace - which started this whole "filter search" nonsense

anyway decided on 72mm MARUMI in DHG C-PL, a Protector, and an ND8

if I can sell my Hoya Pro-1 MC C-PL in 52mm -:wave:- I'll replace that with a Marumi too

yeah - let me know how you get along.......
Click to expand...

Just placed the order with Microglobe and within 5 mins got three emails stating ordered, processing and dispatched! So that's a good start :thumbs:
 
dougiew said:
Just placed the order with Microglobe and within 5 mins got three emails stating ordered, processing and dispatched! So that's a good start :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Microglobe are fine. They're based here in London, querky little shop. But beware, most of their stuff are grey imports. Great prices though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top