K&F are making decent filters at reasonable prices. My favorite protective filters are Sigma WR. I've owned several other brands (B+W, Hoya, Nikon, Chiaro, Heliopan, Tiffen, etc.), but the clearest so far have been Sigmas.
There is no reason to be concerned about cleaning your front element or covering it in any other condition besides heavy dust or sea spray. All 3rd party filters clear or "UV" filters do are degrade IQ and shift the native color coatings.
Your best choice for Nikon lenses are the ARCREST.
KankRat wrote:
Looking into protective filters for my Nikon 500 PF and 24-70 2.8 . Simple reason, I'd rather clean a filter than a lens.
What do those of you that use such filters recommend?
I have this one in 95mm. B+W MRC MASTER 007 Clear Filter (95mm) I also have a number of the Schneider UV filters that are no longer made. I mostly use a polarizer or ND on the 24-xx zooms since they are not abused.
After a few weeks of use and ground level sand blowing you at >25kt it's better to just throw them out.
RoamingScott wrote:
There is no reason to be concerned about cleaning your front element or covering it in any other condition besides heavy dust or sea spray. All 3rd party filters clear or "UV" filters do are degrade IQ and shift the native color coatings.
Your best choice for Nikon lenses are the ARCREST.
By all means then please explain what would've happened had I not had a protective filter....
I'm guesing that folks who vehemently oppose having a clear filter in front of a lens are most likely either marketing employees working for lens manufacturers (the faster you destroy a lens, the faster you'll have to send it to their facility for repair or purchase a new one. Or, maybe they are people who havent owned lenses very long and never had a front element scratched or damaged, so they repeat the mantra of the marketing hype of lens manufacturers.
Please look at my pictures posted in the link I provided. That was me holding my lens, and that damage was real, not AI. The lens was inside a "well padded) Tamrac back pack. The backpack slipped from my hand and only dropped around 5 inches to the ground. The lensshade was attached as well but did nothing to lessen the blow. That filter saved my lens. Period.
snegron7 wrote:
I'm guesing that folks who vehemently oppose having a clear filter in front of a lens are most likely either marketing employees working for lens manufacturers (the faster you destroy a lens, the faster you'll have to send it to their facility for repair or purchase a new one. Or, maybe they are people who havent owned lenses very long and never had a front element scratched or damaged, so they repeat the mantra of the marketing hype of lens manufacturers.
Please look at my pictures posted in the link I provided. That was me holding my lens, and that damage was real, not AI. The lens was inside a "well padded) Tamrac back pack. The backpack slipped from my hand and only dropped around 5 inches to the ground. The lensshade was attached as well but did nothing to lessen the blow. That filter saved my lens. Period. ...Show more →
Give us a break with your ridiculous conspiracy theories. Ever heard of lens caps? They protect your front element, are low cost, and don't distort your shots one iota. Even you should be able to know you need to remove it to take a shot.
Your photos show zero evidence that the same damage would have happened to your front element had the filter not been on the lens. You don't even know exactly why the filter broke in that location. It was probably pressure from the hood when the bag hit the ground. And your filter is neither the strength or shape of the front element, and it sits out further on the lens.
Yeah, all the lens manufacturers are conspirators because they don't include protective filters on their lenses.
I'd say, buy the insurance that covers drops & spills. And always use the lens hood. Never ever not get out without the lens hood. That is more than enough. Give it a puff with rocket blower as soon as you get back and get out. Agree with the others, any kind of filter, however good quality can only cause image degradation. It is simple physics. The optical formulae of lens elements do not consider for another glass in front of it, unless the filter comes from factory with it included in the optical formula of the lens. Only filter you want is a polarizer. And I am pretty sure, you would not need it for wildlife photography with a 500 or 600mm telephoto lens.
I'm guesing that folks who vehemently oppose having a clear filter in front of a lens are most likely either marketing employees working for lens manufacturers (the faster you destroy a lens, the faster you'll have to send it to their facility for repair or purchase a new one. Or, maybe they are people who havent owned lenses very long and never had a front element scratched or damaged, so they repeat the mantra of the marketing hype of lens manufacturers.
Please look at my pictures posted in the link I provided. That was me holding my lens, and that damage was real, not AI. The lens was inside a "well padded) Tamrac back pack. The backpack slipped from my hand and only dropped around 5 inches to the ground. The lensshade was attached as well but did nothing to lessen the blow. That filter saved my lens. Period. ...Show more →
Imagemaster wrote:
Give us a break with your ridiculous conspiracy theories. Ever heard of lens caps? They protect your front element, are low cost, and don't distort your shots one iota. Even you should be able to know you need to remove it to take a shot.
Your photos show zero evidence that the same damage would have happened to your front element had the filter not been on the lens. You don't even know exactly why the filter broke in that location. It was probably pressure from the hood when the bag hit the ground. And your filter is neither the strength or shape of the front element, and it sits out further on the lens.
Yeah, all the lens manufacturers are conspirators because they don't include protective filters on their lenses. ...Show more →
Here we go again. I'll take your bait Tony the Troll. My lens also had the lens cap on at the time of the fall. Matter of fact, the 77mm Canon lens cap, the Canon hood AND the B+H Pro filter were all damaged in the fall. When I removed the fiter (which I had to use a worm drive clamp to remove it), the front element was pristine with no scratches whatsoever. Had I not had the extra layer of protection from that filter, my front lens element would have been damaged. Period.
I've shown you proof. Now let'ts see your proof that filters are unnecessary. Oh, and your usual snarky, rude, trolling insults won't count as proof, so this time you won't be able to use your useless trolling-only methods to make yourself look like some expert that we all know you aren't. Go ahead Tony, show us some evidence.
guywithgas wrote:
I'd say, buy the insurance that covers drops & spills. And always use the lens hood. Never ever not get out without the lens hood. That is more than enough. Give it a puff with rocket blower as soon as you get back and get out. Agree with the others, any kind of filter, however good quality can only cause image degradation. It is simple physics. The optical formulae of lens elements do not consider for another glass in front of it, unless the filter comes from factory with it included in the optical formula of the lens. Only filter you want is a polarizer. And I am pretty sure, you would not need it for wildlife photography with a 500 or 600mm telephoto lens. ...Show more →
Insurance does nothing to pay for lost opportunities in the field. I'm often up to $1-2K per day, so having filters for lenses is a good idea. You don't have to use them all the time.
KankRat wrote:
Looking into protective filters for my Nikon 500 PF and 24-70 2.8. Simple reason, I'd rather clean a filter than a lens.
What do those of you that use such filters recommend?
O.P. here. My question was not intended to start a debate on whether or not to use protective filters. I am not looking for an opinion on that, as it's been argued (generally with no physical examples)- ad nauseum on the web and elsewhere for decades.
Again, primarily looking for those that use them - what brands.
Opinions are different about using protective filters or not, that's how opinions are. I would like to ty to find some common ground. The main argument against using protective filters is that they reduce image quality. The amount of the reduction is somewhere between close to zero and quite a lot. To come to a conclusion for myself I did some tests with my actual lenses and filters. The result was, that I was just barely able to see a degradation, maybe just imagining it. So for me and my equipment this argument against protective filters didn't prove meaningful.
I usually buy Hoya filters, the better coated ones.
The most impact of this additional flat glass should be expected on wide angle lenses. So it is a good idea to try this before starting to use the protective filter permanently.
The layered constuction of polarizing filters make it complicated to make these in perfect quality. So I would be careful with using polarizers of unknown brand, source, age.
I have a collection of old cameras, so I have a bit of a statistical basis. There were very few scratched front lenses, but quite some bent filter threads, usually not repairable without the being visible. So it happens.
snegron7 wrote:
Here we go again. I'll take your bait Tony the Troll. My lens also had the lens cap on at the time of the fall. Matter of fact, the 77mm Canon lens cap, the Canon hood AND the B+H Pro filter were all damaged in the fall. When I removed the fiter (which I had to use a worm drive clamp to remove it), the front element was pristine with no scratches whatsoever. Had I not had the extra layer of protection from that filter, my front lens element would have been damaged. Period.
More assumptions by you trolling on this thread. How about I don't believe your story about your lens having all that protection and your bag only dropping five inches. Sounds like your protective filter was a piece of garbage.
I've shown you proof. Now let'ts see your proof that filters are unnecessary. Oh, and your usual snarky, rude, trolling insults won't count as proof, so this time you won't be able to use your useless trolling-only methods to make yourself look like some expert that we all know you aren't. Go ahead Tony, show us some evidence.
Well your claims that lens manufactures are a conspiracy is evidence you are ridiculous.
Proof that protective filters are unnecessary? Well how about the MILLIONS of lenses used around the world for the last 100 years that did not get damaged even though they did not have protective filters on them.
I guess that is a million times more evidence than your one example, or can't you figure that out.
Imagemaster wrote:
More assumptions by you trolling on this thread. How about I don't believe your story about your lens having all that protection and your bag only dropping five inches. Sounds like your protective filter was a piece of garbage.
Well your claims that lens manufactures are a conspiracy is evidence you are ridiculous.
Proof that protective filters are unnecessary? Well how about the MILLIONS of lenses used around the world for the last 100 years that did not get damaged even though they did not have protective filters on them.
I guess that is a million times more evidence than your one example, or can't you figure that out. ...Show more →
As usual, all talk and no evidence from you little troll dude. I showed you evidence, yet I'm still waiting for evidence from you.
EB-1 wrote:
I have this one in 95mm. B+W MRC MASTER 007 Clear Filter (95mm) I also have a number of the Schneider UV filters that are no longer made. I mostly use a polarizer or ND on the 24-xx zooms since they are not abused.
After a few weeks of use and ground level sand blowing you at >25kt it's better to just throw them out.
EBH
Can you still fit a lens cap on this one? Are there enough threads to bite?
snegron7 wrote:
K&F are making decent filters at reasonable prices. My favorite protective filters are Sigma WR. I've owned several other brands (B+W, Hoya, Nikon, Chiaro, Heliopan, Tiffen, etc.), but the clearest so far have been Sigmas.
Interesting. The Sigma is a bit out of the budget at almost $300 clams.
I have some K&F ND filters and they seem pretty good, but I don't own anything to compare. A friend let me try out his 300 PF which had a regular Nikon NC filter on it. I could not tell any difference with the filter on or off. Like ZERO.
That's what I am leaning towards.
Just for kicks, I'm half tempted to pick up the cheapest filter K&F makes and see just how bad it actually is.
snegron7 wrote:
As usual, all talk and no evidence from you little troll dude. I showed you evidence, yet I'm still waiting for evidence from you.
A story of one incident is called anecdotal evidence. You packed your lenses element down and some cheap glass broke on impact. There are no larger conclusions to draw, nor any way to know what would have happened had the filters NOT been installed.
RoamingScott wrote:
A story of one incident is called anecdotal evidence. You packed your lenses element down and some cheap glass broke on impact. There are no larger conclusions to draw, nor any way to know what would have happened had the filters NOT been installed.
