Internal UV filter on Nikon 300mm f2.8

markjayne

markjayne

Messages
715
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Since I bought my Nikon 300mm f2.8 lens I've always used the internal UV filter that came with it. I'm not a huge fan of any extra glass thats in front of a lens so wondered whether it would be ok to shoot without it.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Mark
 
Should be alright...but if it came with it, then I can't imagine it having any bad effects in the image quality, if it has been specifically designed for it?
 
You sure it's a UV filter and not a clear filter? My Sigma 300mm f2.8 comes with a clear filter and a polarizer and is designed to have one of them in at all times. If the Nikon is the same, you may actually adversely affect the image quality if you remove it.
 
Messiah Khan said:
You sure it's a UV filter and not a clear filter? My Sigma 300mm f2.8 comes with a clear filter and a polarizer and is designed to have one of them in at all times. If the Nikon is the same, you may actually adversely affect the image quality if you remove it.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
If it is a clear filter, I don't see any optical benefit to leaving it in with digital. There maybe some barely measurable benefit when using some films, but the filters over digi sensors get rid of everything except visible light.

On the other hand, I can't see much optical benefit to removing it either. It's buried within the optical system and is not exposed to light from all angles as is the case with filters put in front of the lens, so it can't do any real harm.

There may be more practical considerations. Would removing the filter in some way affect the internal light baffling? I don't know - just guessing. It seems much easier just to leave it there, even if the instruction strictly relates only to film cameras.
 
Mark, its a NC filter, Neutral colour, the only info I could find is that it is a coated filter , perhaps to block UV ??

The Nikon Handbook for the 300mm F/2.8 VR states "Always use a 52mm screw-in filter"
 
I've read several reports that a filter must be included as it will affect the optics of the lens.

Looking at the Canon instruction leaflet for my 600/4 (same setup as the 300/2.8) it states that ;
"The holder must be installed even if there is no gelatin in it"

I suspect that it is simply to stop light entering the rear of the lens.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I've read several reports that a filter must be included as it will affect the optics of the lens.

Looking at the Canon instruction leaflet for my 600/4 (same setup as the 300/2.8) it states that ;
"The holder must be installed even if there is no gelatin in it"

I suspect that it is simply to stop light entering the rear of the lens.

Bob
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes sense. Obviously the holder must go in. I thought people were saying that the filter itself also had to be in place.
 
HoppyUK said:
Ah, that makes sense. Obviously the holder must go in. I thought people were saying that the filter itself also had to be in place.
Click to expand...

I was. The lens has been designed to have the filter included. The optics will have been calibrated with the filter in the light path, and as such if you remove the filter it may adversly affect the image quality. In reality I doubt you will actually see any difference with or without the filter, but since its designed to be there, I would leave it in if it was me.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top