are the NIKON L37 / L37c filters any good..!?

I haven't had to clean a front element in decades. Clean, inspect and replace filters as needed - keep the lenses.

Exactly what I meant: If you use the filter for "protection" purposes only, why let the quality of your excellent lens filter through something, unless it is absolutely necessary? That said, most shots are probably not critical anyway to warrant taking off the UV filter. Do get fussy when there is a very critical shot that you want to make sure everything as "right" as possible. At the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter for most.

I alway's use filters even on my expensive Leica lenses when I had them. I do have a story to tell, there was a guy I knew who owned a

small photo shop (I think his parents help him) and he just purchased a nice 300mm Nikkor lens, when he received the pictures back

he complained and I saw this distortion a wavy look in his photos, well I looked at the lens and saw the cheap filter he had on it which

was wavy and it was causing the distortion. So he changed it and the pictures were better, I told him to get a B&W filter but never really

found out what he did after that, but from then on I alway's used good filters.

With regard to the cost of filters vs. lenses:

 

Bear in mind that MOST filters are just a single piece of optical glass that-in a good quality filter-has to be ground perfectly flat and parallel on both faces.

 

Compare that to even a simple 50mm lens, where you often have a half dozen or more elements, each of which needs to be exactly ground to the correct curvature on both sides, and often even on a simple lens using two or three different types of glass. Once ground, polished, and coated the elements need to be aligned exactly. They're placed in a fixture that holds the elements, moves them around for focusing(whether by turning a focusing ring with your hand, by a system of gears and rods connected to the lens mount, or by a motor integrated into the lens), and an aperture mechanism that can be opened and closed to a precise value as needed needs to be included.

 

It shouldn't be surprising that high end filters-even if made to the same standard as the lens-cost a lot less than the lenses themselves. Of course, there are exceptions-try pricing a Schneider center filter that's made for a specific model of lens-for example(although the filter still costs a lot less than the lens, but you're usually looking at a few hundred dollars for a new one).

 

Also, this isn't applicable to font mounted filters, but don't forget that some lenses are DESIGNED to always have a filter installed. Many super-teles have a rear "drawer" that's intended to(depending on the age of the lens) have a clear, UV, or skylight filter installed all the time.

Filters are needed for certain application (e.g., cp and nd effects) or it's even pre-inserted in some tele lenses. The Singh-ray vari nd's, for example, are well over $300 and it's excellent for stopping down the light with the convenience of not having to switch or add multiple ND's filters. I guess what we are discussing here, however, is whether it would make sense to not have an additional layer between the lens and the subject when that filter is not needed.

I guess what we are discussing here, however, is whether it would make sense to not have an additional layer between the lens and the subject when that filter is not needed.

 

All of my lenses are in excellent shape, and my photos are as sharp as I require. Dealer's choice.

All of my lenses are in excellent shape, and my photos are as sharp as I require. Dealer's choice.

To each his/her own, as long as the "dealer" is happy. ;)

 

As mentioned, in most situations and based on the images we normally see, it does not matter. First of all, how often does one encounter an incredible photo opportunity that warrants optimization of every last bit of photographic skill and variable that we can think of? When we think about it in this context, the addition or non-addition of an unnecessary layer of glass between the lens and the scene is probably the least important factor that makes a difference in the photography.

Here's my take on filters. I use the Nikon filters you mentioned and I also use B+W filters. Both are high quality and even though I've used a slr/dslr for the past 50 -55 years I don't see the degradation people always mention as a reason not to use them. Have you ever looked at a nice expensive lens with a scratch on front element on eBay? All of a sudden you've lost part of the resale value of that lens, sometimes the lost value is dramatic. How did the element get scratched? It wouldn't happen with a filter on it. When I buy used I'm picky about my lenses and always buy lenses without scratches.

I saw this distortion a wavy look in his photos, well I looked at the lens and saw the cheap filter he had on it which

was wavy and it was causing the distortion.

 

- That reminds me. Some years back Toshiba(!?) decided to get into the photo accessories business. They brought out some flashguns - fair enough, they're an electronics company after all - but then marketed a range of filters. Whoa! A step too far. I stupidly bought a few of their filters, only to find two of them wavy and useless.

 

Toshiba dropped their photo-accessory ambitions shortly after that. I wonder why?

 

Anyhow, since then I've mainly stuck with Hoya. They're the biggest glass filter-maker in the world, and apart from a brief venture into lenses, that's all they do. So if they can't get it right, who can?

Edited October 15, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

Interesting discussion here: "When Not to Use a UV Filter" (link). I was emphasizing on Theory #3 in the above discussion and agreed that the "better-image" aspect is negligible compared to other more serious issues that the photographer is probably struggling with. Hwvr, this article mentions 4 items What's more interesting is his Point #4 - that it does not always protect the lens. Ha!

 

At the very least, the UV filter protects the lens against dirt and dust. In my past experience, I would take the UV filter off before shooting an image I considered critical, then put it back on the lens for protection against inclement weather.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Mary Doo

Worth a look:

 

My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article

duplicate

Worth a look:

 

My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article

Interesting read Watson. The author admits that the jury is still out on this matter despite his exhaustive research and tests. I do agree with one of his ending statements: "On the other hand, for critical work, it only takes a few seconds to remove the filter and put it back on."

 

In other words, when in doubt, play on the safe side? ;)

I use filters (mostly Nikon NC and B&W 007) on lenses that have shallow hoods...mostly wide angles. If I don't use the filters, I'd be wiping greasy fingerprints and assorted debris off the front glass of those lenses more than I'd like. Oh, and in the field (often sandy/dusty places), I usually wipe with my shirt.

I use filters (mostly Nikon NC and B&W 007) on lenses that have shallow hoods...mostly wide angles. If I don't use the filters, I'd be wiping greasy fingerprints and assorted debris off the front glass of those lenses more than I'd like. Oh, and in the field (often sandy/dusty places), I usually wipe with my shirt.

 

Way back when I started to build me Nikon collection, my 3rd acquisition was a Nikkor 300mm F4.5. I worked for a camera store in Hempstead, NY and when I bought the

lens, I wanted to protect the front lens element, so I bought a Hoya 72mm skylight filter. When I started to go out and test the new lens, I noticed an odd thing. The lens

couldn't focus at infinity. I brought the lens into the Nikon(EPOI at that time) just outside of Roosevelt Field. In a couple of days I received a call to come in and pick it up.

I asked what they had found and they said the 300mm was not the problem. The technician asked me to go to the window and focus at a target at infinity. It worked perfectly.

Then he said, let me put back on your Hoya 72mm filter and retry focusing at infinity again. Sure enough, I couldn't focus at infinity. He explained, that especially on larger

lens it becomes more prevalent. He said it was a Plano Parnellism issue and of course I asked what was that?? He explained that the Hoya 72mm wasn't perfectly parallel

once it was screwed onto the 300mm. He went on to say that this is what caused the issue. He then took out a 72mm Nikon L37 and screwed it onto the 300mm. I then

attempted the same test, and bingo, the Nikon filter focused down to infinity perfectly. So my suggestion is, buy the better made filters. They just work better. .

Telephoto lenses are much more sensitive to out-of-parallelism filter surfaces than normal or wide lenses. I once mounted my Russian 300/4.5 lens to a Beaulieu Super-8 camera. I attached a cheap Cokin 85B filter---which is made of plastic---and the images were blurry and distorted. Great effect if you wanted to illustrate what a drunk sees.

The technician asked me to go to the window and focus at a target at infinity. It worked perfectly.

Errr, so a sheet of ordinary window glass interposed between lens and subject didn't affect the focus, but fitting a filter did?

 

That sounds very strange.

 

All I can add is that all my Hoya HMC series filters work perfectly, and indistinguishably from Nikon L37Cs. But I avoid shooting long lenses through UV filters, having encountered the focus-shift issue described above.

 

Then again, air turbulence or pollution will take the edge off telephoto image quality shot at any distance too.

Edited March 28, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

I generally have pretty good experience with Hoya filters, but in these days I mostly use Nikon NC and polarizers or, if the Nikon version is too expensive, I get B+W, and I don’t use filters all that much any more.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that brands such as Hoya and B+W have many grades of filters, while Nikon just has one version. Some of the high-end Hoya filters can be more expensive than Nikon. In any case, I am sure Hoya can produce filters that are flat enough to be of very high quality. You can find defective items from any brand.

I generally have pretty good experience with Hoya filters, but in these days I mostly use Nikon NC and polarizers or, if the Nikon version is too expensive, I get B+W, and I don’t use filters all that much any more.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that brands such as Hoya and B+W have many grades of filters, while Nikon just has one version. Some of the high-end Hoya filters can be more expensive than Nikon. In any case, I am sure Hoya can produce filters that are flat enough to be of very high quality. You can find defective items from any brand.

OK, that's good to know. I purchased the Hoya 72mm for about half the cost of the Nikon one, back in the day. I was buying it mostly, just to protect the front element

not realizing what effect it had on that 300mm f4 lens. It didn't even dawn on me to remove it and test the lens prior to bring it in for Nikon USA repair. Also, products

have improved immensely since the 1970's too!

Hoya filters can help, as witness:

Broken on Lens. Lens ok.

Hoya filters can help, as witness:

[ATTACH=full]1289366[/ATTACH]

Broken on Lens. Lens ok.

The issue I brought up about the Hoya 72mm skylight filter was indeed a true story. A " Flat piece of glass" indeed can cause this.

Do a Bing or Google search on the terminology of Plano Parallelism for a detail description. A quick explanation is this. If Any Filter

is screwed onto a lens isn't exactly Plano Parallel it can cause this Out-of-Focus condition when attempting to focus at infinity.

I have only experienced it with that Nikon 300mm F4.5 lens I bought new along with the Hoya 72mm Skylight filter. I'm thinking

with the Higher focal lengths this condition can be more pronounced. I wasn't a knock on Hoya by any means but I did have to return the

72mm Skylight filter. When the Nikon Technician showed me what was causing the Out-of-Focus condition at infinity, I thought

he was blowing smoke until he had me try focusing with and without the filter in place.. When the Hoya was removed, the lens focused

to infinity perfectly. I purchase the Nikon 72mm right there at their Nikon Repair facility, and immediately screwed it onto my New

300mm f4.5 lens and tested if it could focus to infinity.It focused perfectly at infinity. Better yet, you could call Nikon directly and ask

what I explained is a true condition or not.

The issue I brought up about the Hoya 72mm skylight filter was indeed a true story.

...

I purchase the Nikon 72mm right there at their Nikon Repair facility, and immediately screwed it onto my New

300mm f4.5 lens and tested if it could focus to infinity.It focused perfectly at infinity.

John, I don't doubt that your story is true. However, that merely means there was one Hoya filter that was defective such that your 300mm lens could not focus to infinity with it, and there was/is one Nikon L37c filter that is (near) perfect.

 

I have quite a few Nikon L37c filters as well as the newer NC filters. So far I haven't come across one that I would consider defective. However, if you search through a hundred Nikon filters, maybe you will fine a bad one or two. Years ago I also used to have plenty of Hoya filters and I haven't come across any issues, but in recent years I am sticking to either Nikon or B+W filters. What I wouldn't do is to base on that one experience and conclude that all Hoya filters are poor or all Nikon filters are excellent.

 

About 10 years ago, I once stack three L37c filters together and see how that would degrade image quality:

UV/Skylight Filters

 

Did I tell you that I have plenty of Nikon filters? :) But back in 2009, all I had was a 12MP D700, and my conclusion was that image degradation was minimal with three filters. Therefore, it should be pretty safe to use one, if necessary, but I probably wouldn't use a filter if I need to shoot directly into the sun or another strong light source. Today's 45MP cameras could be more demanding and reveal any flaws more easily.

 

Regardless of whether you get a Hoya filter, B+W filter or other brands, I would make sure that it is multi-coated. Some of the really cheap ones, even from a well known brand, could indeed be of poor quality. As far as I know, filters represent huge profit margins for camera stores. I know Nikon filters are good, and 62mm, 72mm, 77mm NC Nikons are IMO reasonably priced, but somehow 82mm and 95mm ones are super-expensive. Therefore, I get B+W for the larger ones.

Edited April 5, 2019 by ShunCheung

John and everybody else, you also may find this blog post by Roger Cicala interesting. It is slightly dated from 2011:

 

Good Times with Bad Filters

John, I don't doubt that your story is true. However, that merely means there was one Hoya filter that was defective such that your 300mm lens could not focus to infinity with it, and there was/is one Nikon L37c filter that is (near) perfect.

 

I have quite a few Nikon L37c filters as well as the newer NC filters. So far I haven't come across one that I would consider defective. However, if you search through a hundred Nikon filters, maybe you will fine a bad one or two. Years ago I also used to have plenty of Hoya filters and I haven't come across any issues, but in recent years I am sticking to either Nikon or B+W filters. What I wouldn't do is to base on that one experience and conclude that all Hoya filters are poor or all Nikon filters are excellent.

 

About 10 years ago, I once stack three L37c filters together and see how that would degrade image quality:

UV/Skylight Filters

 

Did I tell you that I have plenty of Nikon filters? :) But back in 2009, all I had was a 12MP D700, and my conclusion was that image degradation was minimal with three filters. Therefore, it should be pretty safe to use one, if necessary, but I probably wouldn't use a filter if I need to shoot directly into the sun or another strong light source. Today's 45MP cameras could be more demanding and reveal any flaws more easily.

 

Regardless of whether you get a Hoya filter, B+W filter or other brands, I would make sure that it is multi-coated. Some of the really cheap ones, even from a well known brand, could indeed be of poor quality. As far as I know, filters represent huge profit margins for camera stores. I know Nikon filters are good, and 62mm, 72mm, 77mm NC Nikons are IMO reasonably priced, but somehow 82mm and 95mm ones are super-expensive. Therefore, I get B+W for the larger ones.

I see I've touched upon a nerve that I never intended to do, but your explanations are getting past the point. I bought 1 defective Hoya 72mm Skylight

filter. You didn't read my explanation why it was defective as per what the Nikon technician explained to me. Not me saying it, the Nikon Repair Technician.

The glass I'm sure was produced FLAT but the way Hoya mounted the filter within their metal filter mount, somehow didn't assure it was plano parallel. That the

story, plain and simple. Now, I already told you, do I think Hoya are inferior? No, just the one, I just happen to purchase. Honestly, there are plenty

of manufacturer's to choose filter for ANY product. Your insistence that the even a search thru hundreds of Nikon filters could produce a bad one

just doesn't make sense. Buy what your happy with but do look up what Plano Parallel is before passing judgement on a simple observation and

a more simpler solution.

I see I've touched upon a nerve that I never intended to do,

I don't think you have touched upon a never at all, at least not on me.

 

What I disagree with is the generalization towards an entire brand, based on one defective sample. If that is not what you are doing, then don't worry about it.

Edited April 6, 2019 by ShunCheung