Lens Protector?

Jason E

Jason E

Messages
39
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys, i've not been into photography very long so still a beginner at this,i've got a Nikon D3200 and was wondering which would be the best lens protector to fit my Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm lens? Thanks
 
Yes,ok that's great thanks for the reply,i've just seen a Maxima - 58mm for my lens on Amazon at sale price so i'll go for that one.
 
Jason, unless you'll be shooting where there's a lot of airborne debris you'll be better off with the lens hood that came with the lens. It won't stop the fingerpoken mittengrabben but will stop you banging the front of the lens on things. A "protection" filter can never add to the image quality and is more likely to cause flare than provide meaningful protection.

IMO, of course!
 
^^WHS^^

Also, I think if you are going to introduce a piece of glass to the front of your lens, it really needs to be a high quality as possible. Otherwise, you are damaging your image quality before youve even pressed the shutter button. Much better off just using the lens hood as protection IMO.
 
Nod said:
Jason, unless you'll be shooting where there's a lot of airborne debris you'll be better off with the lens hood that came with the lens. It won't stop the fingerpoken mittengrabben but will stop you banging the front of the lens on things. A "protection" filter can never add to the image quality and is more likely to cause flare than provide meaningful protection.

IMO, of course!
Click to expand...

I thought the UV filters were designed to cut out UV Haze and offer added protection though? Would you advise me to remove them from my lenses then?
 
Proud2btaff said:
I thought the UV filters were designed to cut out UV Haze and offer added protection though? Would you advise me to remove them from my lenses then?
Click to expand...

UV isn't a problem with digital as far as do you need one listen to the arguments and make your own mind up,i use them after the first time out with a new lens no filter and a lens hood on,some thing got on the front element and left a mark i could never get off,i cant say it had any effect on image quality but it annoyed the hell out of me.
I have heard this argument about lowering image quality but have yet to see examples of a top quality filter doing that.
 
mikew said:
UV isn't a problem with digital as far as do you need one listen to the arguments and make your own mind up,i use them after the first time out with a new lens no filter and a lens hood on,some thing got on the front element and left a mark i could never get off,i cant say it had any effect on image quality but it annoyed the hell out of me.
I have heard this argument about lowering image quality but have yet to see examples of a top quality filter doing that.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response mike. I will have to have a look and see if it does make a difference removing them. I have heard that it can create a sort of ghost/flare effect when using them at night but not sure 100% about that.
 
mikew said:
I have heard this argument about lowering image quality but have yet to see examples of a top quality filter doing that.
Click to expand...

Thats the point, Mike. You wouldnt want to put a cheapo filter infront of your lens.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Thats the point, Mike. You wouldnt want to put a cheapo filter infront of your lens.
Click to expand...

Sorry nick, by cheapo what would you class as cheapo ie I think the ones I have bought other than for my 500mm are around £20-25 mark, my 500mm cost £75ish. Would you class those as cheap or are you talking £5 ebay ones lol. Sorry if this seems a stupid question.
 
Proud2btaff said:
Sorry nick, by cheapo what would you class as cheapo ie I think the ones I have bought other than for my 500mm are around £20-25 mark, my 500mm cost £75ish. Would you class those as cheap or are you talking £5 ebay ones lol. Sorry if this seems a stupid question.
Click to expand...

No, not a stupid question at all. What I mean by that, is that I would always try to ensure that the filter I was using was at least made of glass and not plastic, and was multi-coated to help prevent flare/ghosting. Basically, as expensive as possible :D

Edited to say: I know that expensive doesnt always necessarily mean 'best', but you get my drift.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
No, not a stupid question at all. What I mean by that, is that I would always try to ensure that the filter I was using was at least made of glass and not plastic, and was multi-coated to help prevent flare/ghosting. Basically, as expensive as possible :D

Edited to say: I know that expensive doesnt always necessarily mean 'best', but you get my drift.
Click to expand...
Thanks Nick, I am pretty sure that the ones I have fill this criteria but will double check, if not tis off to the bin with them.
 
Proud2btaff said:
Thanks Nick, I am pretty sure that the ones I have fill this criteria but will double check, if not tis off to the bin with them.
Click to expand...

You dont have to take any notice of me, thats just my personal preference. if you are happy that you are not loosing out on IQ, there isnt really a need for you to bin what you have (y)
 
I never use the front filter when shooting - always a lens hood - if I have a filter I leave it on for protection when the lens is stored
Why but expensive glass then stick a cheap bit of glass on the front

IMHO
 
Last edited:
Here is what I think

1 - Lens hood all the time, regardless whether you have a filter or not. Mostly, there are exceptions

Exceptions to where lens hood are necessary:-

a - shooting in high wind situations where the hoods causes drag which increases instability to camera shake.
b - when you don't care for flare and want to keep the size of the camera small (e.g. travelling). Instead, use a filter.
c - in a studio or controlled environment
d - you are using other filters such as Polarizer

2 - Filters are used always, except in a controlled environment and you want the absolute best IQ over protection.

Instances where filters are needed

a - when the lens requires a filter to complete its weather sealing - e.g. Canon 16-35L
b - you are shooting in an unknown environment
c - you are not shooting with a hood

My favourite filters are by B+W, MRC nano coated which has the thinnest mount, minimum vignetting, next is their F-Pro mount. Then Hoya Pro Digital is 3rd choice. I do not use anything else. They are not cheap, the 72mm one on the 85L is around £90. My latest one I got which is 67mm for my Sigma 50A was £65. They tend to work out around 8-10% of the lens costs. When you have quality glass, do not put low quality glass in front of it.

All my lenses have them, I shoot weddings where it is unpredictable, people dances with a glass bottle, it rains etc and I know some people will argue that's what insurance is for if you break the lens. Well, insurance won't deliver me a lens shooting on location 2 mins after i broken the front element. If I damaged the filter I can just unscrew it and keep going. And since a lot of the lenses are either 72mm or 77mm, I could even take off a filter from a lens I wasn't using and put it on the one that i am.

That's my thoughts on filters, yours may differ.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Here is what I think

1 - Lens hood all the time, regardless whether you have a filter or not. Mostly, there are exceptions

Exceptions to where lens hood are necessary:-

a - shooting in high wind situations where the hoods causes drag which increases instability to camera shake.
b - when you don't care for flare and want to keep the size of the camera small (e.g. travelling). Instead, use a filter.
c - in a studio or controlled environment
d - you are using other filters such as Polarizer

2 - Filters are used always, except in a controlled environment and you want the absolute best IQ over protection.

Instances where filters are needed

a - when the lens requires a filter to complete its weather sealing - e.g. Canon 16-35L
b - you are shooting in an unknown environment
c - you are not shooting with a hood

My favourite filters are by B+W, MRC nano coated which has the thinnest mount, minimum vignetting, next is their F-Pro mount. Then Hoya Pro Digital is 3rd choice. I do not use anything else. They are not cheap, the 72mm one on the 85L is around £90. My latest one I got which is 67mm for my Sigma 50A was £65. They tend to work out around 8-10% of the lens costs. When you have quality glass, do not put low quality glass in front of it.

All my lenses have them, I shoot weddings where it is unpredictable, people dances with a glass bottle, it rains etc and I know some people will argue that's what insurance is for if you break the lens. Well, insurance won't deliver me a lens shooting on location 2 mins after i broken the front element. If I damaged the filter I can just unscrew it and keep going. And since a lot of the lenses are either 72mm or 77mm, I could even take off a filter from a lens I wasn't using and put it on the one that i am.

That's my thoughts on filters, yours may differ.
Click to expand...


:plus1:
 
Proud2btaff said:
Sorry nick, by cheapo what would you class as cheapo ie I think the ones I have bought other than for my 500mm are around £20-25 mark, my 500mm cost £75ish. Would you class those as cheap or are you talking £5 ebay ones lol. Sorry if this seems a stupid question.
Click to expand...

What filter have you on the 500?. Mine only takes drop-ins. No thread on the front.
 
  • No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
  • All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
  • The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
  • Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
  • All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
  • Image degradation is worse with longer focal lengths.
 
Proud2btaff said:
I thought the UV filters were designed to cut out UV Haze and offer added protection though? Would you advise me to remove them from my lenses then?
Click to expand...

Already been answered. There's a UV filter in front of the sensor anyway so that benefit is negated. Back in the days of film, a UV or a Skylight filter were worth using - the UV does cut UV which did cause problems on film and the Skylight added a hint of warmth in direct sunlight. These days of digital though, white balance (the Skylight filter is basically a WB adjuster) can be tweaked in PP or in camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top