Favorite UV Filter for Nikon F1.8/35mm DX Lens

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by peverall_dubois, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. I am the first time user of this wonderful lens.
    What's your favorite and suggestion for the UV Filter
    attachable to this lens?
    P.D.
     
  2. A glassless one.
     
  3. Do you need a protective filter? For example, you might if you photograph boxing or martial arts from ringside. Or puppies and babies up close, both of which tend to mash their noses against lenses.
    But you don't need a UV filter with most digital cameras or most color negative film. It's occasionally useful with color slide film in specific situations. Most contemporary lenses are already multi-coated to minimize problems with excessive UV. Color corrections in digital editing, or by minilabs during printing from color negatives, can easily correct any minor problems that may occasionally appear.
    If you don't need the filter to protect the lens from damage due to routine exposure to risky situations, you might skip it. Even the best filters can risk some additional flare. I use them occasionally to protect my lenses in specific situations, but always take extra precautions to minimize flare. When I don't need filters I remove 'em.
     
  4. Hoya makes good price/performance stuff. I prefer lens hood over any filters but if you feel you need a filter go ahead, it's not very expensive in 52mm size.
    Hood protects the lens quite well and cuts stray light.
    Filter protects the lens but can add flare in contra light, this includes bar/nightclub and outdoor night scenes, not just sunlight, a point people miss sometimes.
     
  5. Modern DSLR cameras have a UV filter built in over the sensor. You don't need a UV filter. I sometimes use a polarizer, but only high quality multi-coated ones. I virtually never use a UV filter. For me, they're asking for problems. I'm with Hans on this one. To protect my lens I do use the very tough plastic lens cap though. That's what Nikon designed it for. Same for lens hoods. Glass is flimsy and breaks.
    Kent in SD
     
  6. None. I have spent a lot of money on high quality UV filters for my first ten or so lenses, but since then I have stopped. You don't need them. Well, in some situations, for example near a waterfall, I suppose they give peace of mind, but in all other cases they are unnecessary. I have never damaged a lens. If I had, it would not have cost as much to replace the lens as I have initially spent on UV filters. It's just that the shops like to sell them, because they have high margins. That's the reason why every shop will recommend a filter for each new lens.
     
  7. As you have been advised none!
     
  8. Wow. I've never seen one of these filter questions get a unanimous response. Well, I won't break the streak. Always use your included hood and don't use a filter unless you have a special reason to do so. I do know from personal experience that cheap filters will cause ghosts in not so exceptional circumstances.
     
  9. I buy top of the line B+W or Nikon multi-coated UV filters for all my lenses. I've done this since the '70s and the front elements of all my lenses are in perfect condition. The filters have gotten covered in salt spray, been cracked by collisions in crowds and generally taken abuse. When I budget a lens, I budget the filter. Have fun with your 35/1.8, a terrific lens. (I only take the filters off if I need to attach another or if I'm shooting directly into light and the filter causes flare (rare)).
    The first time you inadvertently touch the front lens element with you finger, you'll be very happy you can take it off and wash it. I'd hate to have the acid in my skin etch my lens.
     
  10. I have changed my practice completely. For many years, I did not use UV filters at all - now I have them on every lens I own (OK, not on the fisheye). Why? I agree with all the statements made above - on digital they are not needed, they don't afford mechanical protection, they can introduce/enhance flare - all good reasons not to use a filter - but to me a filter is a heck of a lot easier to clean than the front element of a lens. I use high-quality HOYA filters as well as Nikon ones - and there might still be a B+W floating around (I replaced one on my 12-24 with a Hoya and the reduction in flare was significant). Whenever I am in critical lighting situations, I try to remember to remove the filter...
     
  11. NO filter for me too! Never!!
     
  12. If you want to use more money then B+W MRC KR1,5 or UV if less money then Hoya HMC skylight or UV. Both are high quality, the B+W just a little bit better.
    Sometimes I use filters, sometimes I don't, typically so that I don't use them when I have a good reason not to do so (which is usually the risk of ghosting due to stray light).
     
  13. Well - there are two schools of thought on this one -
    one - use none - read Dieter's comments again
    two - for "protection". I don't use a UV filter on lenses - I use a Nikon NC (No Color) filter. I do have a few lenses I don't use them on & I have to tell you that when my new 10-24mm got dunked by a wave this summer at the beach I really wished I had a NC filter on it. I don't unfortunately. It was so much fun to get the salt water & sand off the lens. :-(
    Now my feeling is this. It really comes down to your environment. I live in the Los Angeles region. But where I live it's high dust/sand/wind environment. I really feel it's a lot cheaper to have a filter I can remove when I need to or want to, than to have to remove all that sand & dirt off the front element of my lenses.
    I can't escape the winds & sand/dirt flying around. It can easily cause issues in the high winds I deal with. I prefer my Nikon NC filters. I have yet to have one of them produce a lens flare or any other problem. As a matter of fact - the few times I've had lens flare it's been from lenses without filters. I'm sure it was just the conditions..... But I have yet to have one of my filters cause me any problems.
    Also - about 1 1/2 years ago I had an incident with my brand new 24-70mm lens. Had I not had a NC filter on that lens - my front threads would be destroyed. Instead - the thread of the NC filter were. So - sometimes those NC filters can save a lens. :) Other times potentially damage.
    Follow your heart on this matter. What works for you is what you have to do.
     
  14. I hear a concensus forming Peverall.
    There is one reason and one reason only to use a UV filter.
    At high altitudes where UV (is) a problem creating blue color casts that are not easily removed via PS or anything else.
    Those who like to claim all the protection a UV filter affords need to re-evaluate the logic in such a statement.
    Need more evidence against?
    I go to many pro sports events..I've never seen a paid shooter with a filter over their lens.
    The arguement over yes or no seems obvious to me..why would I place a 50 dollar piece of glass over a 2 thousand dollar piece of glass? Yikes!
     
  15. "I go to many pro sports events..I've never seen a paid shooter with a filter over their lens."
    Which could also be explained by the fact photographers from major newspapers and magazines don't generally buy their own equipment. If an expensive lens gets scratched, they're not out-of-pocket.
    If one of my lenses gets a front-element scratch or gets some chemical spooge on it that eats through the coating, I'm paying for a new lens or an ungodly expensive front-element replacement. In the case of my favorite lens, my 28mm f/1.4 AF-D Nikkor, I'd be unable to find a replacement in good condition without paying waaaaaaaaaaay more than the original purchase price. And over the years, I've had to replace several filters in accidents where I would have at least wound up replacing the front element of a lens- e.g. scalding hot candle wax from a nighttime wedding on the filter protecting a 60mm f/2.8 AF-D Micro-Nikkor.
    "(W)hy would I place a 50 dollar piece of glass over a 2 thousand dollar piece of glass?"
    This is a straw man argument. My thousand-dollar plus Nikon lenses are covered by Nikon L37c filters that have coatings that match up nicely with Nikon's lens coatings.
    I've A-B'd Nikon lenses with and without Nikon coated filters for more than 25 years. I've never had an instance where image quality was degraded by filter use. As an example, see this post by Shun where he A-B'd shots putting three Nikon coated filters on a lens:
    http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UNFa
    If you don't want to use a protection filter, that's fine, God bless. But don't be absurd and pretend that anyone who does use a protection filter is destroying the image quality of their lenses.
     
  16. I always use a filter and shade. They have saved my lenses many, many times. The front elements of my lenses have literally never been touched. If I have some really critically sharp image work to do with a tripod, I will take off the filter for the shot, then put it right back on. If you can find a Nikon filter, they are great. Otherwise I buy a good quality, multi-coated Hoya, B&W, Canon, or other high end filter. And I try to buy a clear filter, not UV or Skylight, because I don't want it to mess with the color accuracy.
     
  17. On the subject of clear filters v. UV filters, I've read that digital sensors are less susceptible to UV exposure than is film. That said, I've looked at Nikon L37c UV filters alongside Nikon NC filters in all sorts of light and have been unable to see any color difference between them. Zeroing out processing correction for the two types of filters as best I can, I also can't see any difference between the two when shooting a digital camera.
    I currently use L37c UV filters on my Nikon lenses, as I have a little stockpile of them. However, when they get scratched or spooged-up, I'll replace them with Nikon's NC filters.
     
  18. who does use a protection filter is destroying the image quality of their lenses.​
    Eric,
    Of course you are (for) using them, because you use them!
    I can't see anywhere in my post where I used the word "destroy." You're sounding like the people who attempted to put words into Rush Limbaughs mouth for the intent to destroy him.
    I do agree however, if you wanna' use 'em, God Bless.
    The A-B arguement holds no water in risk vs reward. Sure, in a perfect world where the light is striking parallel to the lens, great, probably no discernable diff...but when I get a shot with the sun blowing in from some oblique angle, there is no way I'll risk a flare possibility with a simple physics principle known as (air/glass/air/glass refraction.
    You've used them for 25 years, I've been w/o them for 30+ and have never had a situatiuon where a filter would have guarded against physical damage.
    Believe my, the SI guys I know who shoot sports are VERY concerned about their lenses...SI certainly does not want nor need to spend 6 to 8,000 for a lens that is treated in a risky way; it's risky enough on the sidelines with a 250 lb player barreling at you in full gallop.
    The shooters don't use them for the reasons I mention and has nothing to do with their deep pockets.
     
  19. I use a B+W KR 1.5 on this lens as my everyday filter. I set Cloudy white balance for all of my outdoor shots on my D 300. Since I shoot RAW, I can always change white balance if needed which I do about 5% of the time. That filter with its slight warm tone and Cloudy white balance gives me the look I like. I like the extra protection the filter privides to the lens glass. And I always have a lens hood on the lens. But that is me. Others do not like this and that is fine with me. I have tried other brands inluding Nikon and they do not compare in quality or longevity to B+W.
    Joe Smith
     
  20. If I were to buy a quality coated UV filter for each of my lenses, the cost would be equal to having two damaged elements repaired. After 20+ years of outdoor and occasional commercial photography in some very extreme conditions, I have yet to have any lens damaged in a way that a filter could possibly have prevented. The last lens I had damaged had a rock go through both the B+W polarizaer filter and then into the lens. Result was I not only had a lens repair but also lost a $120 filter, compounding my loss. I use the lens caps for protection. My lenses are perfect despite frequent out and out abuse. UV filters just don't do anything.
    Kent in SD
     
  21. I think that Hoya currently have the best one out thier with thier HD filters.

    They produce almost absolutely no reflection and you can barely see the glass in the filter. It is about the closest thing you get to a glassless filter.
    That said...before you spring for a protection filter you should read this

    http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches


    The reason I use a protection filter is that sometimes it is just easier to clean than the front lens element. I sometimes shoot in situation where I am getting sprayed with mud/water and its just much quicker to give a squirt of cleaning fluid to the filter and quickly wipe it off with a microfiber cloth.
     
  22. After reading up on the filters, B&W seemed to be best....no flare...no artifacts etc... I picked one up at a camera expo for a reasonable price. The glass on the filter may be even nicer than a couple of my lenses (>8
     
  23. I clearly spoke too quickly.
     
  24. I use multi-coated-- usually B+W or Hoya-- UV filters on all of my lenses. Photos seem to be OK. But then, I've never been accused of being particularly discriminating when it comes to image quality.
     
  25. If I were to buy a quality coated UV filter for each of my lenses, the cost would be equal to having two damaged elements repaired.​
    I've had damaged elements. Replacing them is often equal to the cost of the lens...especially a zoom lens.
    I'd get a clear or a UV filter. I can't count how many times the filter has saved my lens from damage.
     
  26. Jim Tardio wrote: "I can't count how many times the filter has saved my lens from damage."
    Without controlled tests you don't know how many times the filter has saved your lens from damage.
     
  27. In the past, I always used UV or skylight filters to protect from damage. However, filters can damage images due to reflections. This is true with the best filters (presuming that Nikon and B+W make the 'best' filters). Lately, I have tried to avoid these filters, especially indoors.
    My somewhat casual testing indicates that filters introduce problems in many circumstances. I do professional stage work. Filters tend to produce unwanted reflections from stage lights. They also tend to add reflections to many kinds of contra-light.
    OTOH, I have shot in Oregon rain and snow (where one needs to continuously mop water from the filter or lens), in the SW US in adverse conditions, even Egyptian pyramids in blowing sand. I have had to replace filters due to damage (damage from sand, cleaning, cheaper filters, etc.). I've not had to repair filtered lenses.
    I have also damaged filters due to impacts denting the rings -- meaning that it was impossible to screw anything into the outer rings. Not necessarily carelessness, but things happen if you are out shooting. Lens repairs would have been more expensive than filter replacement. Lens shades reduce the possibility of this, but I didn't always use them.
    In summary, I suggest avoiding filters unless protection is paramount. If you use filters, employ the best. Lens shades supplement protection, but the primary use of them is to shield from off-axis light (where their use is variable, especially with zooms). Regardless, I almost always use a lens shade these days. YMMV.
     
  28. Hi,
    Maybe this article can help you. I have used high quality filters last 40 years and only few times there have been flare etc. because of the filter. When I´m at sea I always use filters to protect lenses against salty fog.
    http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
    BR
    Esa Kivivuori
    Hyvinkää, Finland
     
  29. Hi again,
    Sorry about that photo attachment :( Maybe this one is ok.
    BR
    Esa
    00UnnP-182167584.jpg
     
  30. Long lens users don't need filters because Nikon's superteles have a simple flat front element, call it a built-in protective filter. I don't know if this is the case for all big glass, but IIRC all the current ones have it.
    Regarding ghosting and flare, this is highly dependent on the combination of lens and filter. It can't be generalized that filters cause/don't cause flare in backlit situations, this depends on many things.
    I don't have filters for all of my lenses, I never take all of my lenses with me anyway. But there is crud that builds up on the glass up front. Typically it's dust, but could be pollen, seawater, rainwater, whatever.
     
  31. Douglas Herr , Oct 20, 2009; 11:29 p.m. (edit | delete )
    Jim Tardio wrote: "I can't count how many times the filter has saved my lens from damage."
    Without controlled tests you don't know how many times the filter has saved your lens from damage.​
    That's a specious argument. Jim is well qualified to comment on his own direct experience, even in generalizations.


    Your comment would be valid only if he had said "I can't count how many times a protective filter has saved other people's lenses from damage." He didn't claim that.
     
  32. Arguing with the Anti-Protective-Filterites is pointless. All these agruments devolve into silliness.
    The forces arrayed against the use of protective filters rely on anecdotal arguments that they accept as immutable truths. But when someone like Jim Tardio, whose probably done more shooting with more lenses in more places than the rest of us put together, says protection filters have saved his lenses from damage on numerous occasions, suddenly some sort of lab experiment is necessary to prove his veracity.
    Past experience has taught me the value of protective filters. But I don't ridicule people who choose not to use them.
    The poster didn't ask whether others believed in the efficacy of protective filters. He asked for suggestions on what filter to buy.
     
  33. Thanks, Lex. But it's the real world outside of "controlled tests" that presents an opportunity for damage. I've had a filter cracked accidentally by a women with the tip of her umbrella. She never knew she did it.
     
  34. Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins wrote: "

    Douglas Herr , Oct 20, 2009; 11:29 p.m. (edit | delete )
    Jim Tardio wrote: "I can't count how many times the filter has saved my lens from damage."
    Without controlled tests you don't know how many times the filter has saved your lens from damage.
    That's a specious argument. Jim is well qualified to comment on his own direct experience, even in generalizations"
    Without a controlled test any "evidence" people report is 100% anecdotal. My real-world experience (40 years worth) is that protective filters cause more damage than they prevent - but I'm not going to say this is the norm, because I don't have any controlled experiments to demonstrate this one way or another. It's likely that a protective filter will prevent some damage, also likely that it will cause some damage but without controlled tests you cannot predict whether in a particular scenario a protective filter will cause or prevent damage. I'm not advocating for or against the use of protective filters, I'm advocating understanding the risks and benefits. Anecdotal evidence whether mine or Jim's is not evidence at all.
     
  35. The poster didn't ask whether others believed in the efficacy of protective filters. He asked for suggestions on what filter to buy.​
    Good point. I contributed to the usual pro/con filter debate with my own first post.
    I've had very good results with B+W, Hoya, Nikon brand and even Kenko's budget lineup of UV, skylight and protective type filters. Even the low priced Kenkos have been much better than the Tiffens. For some reason all of my Tiffens have become hazy over the years. For what it's worth, my older Vivitar filters, most dating back 20 years or so, are still in excellent shape - no haze, and the coating was reasonably resistant to flare. And I've never experienced any flare with the 52mm Nikon L37c, an excellent but rather expensive filter.
    While the Kenko I use with my 28/3.5 PC Nikkor lacks the sophisticated multi-coating of the better filters I've been able to induce flare only in one specific situation, and that was a deliberate choice. I wanted to echo the iris-shaped opening at the peak of the tall metal sculpture outside Fort Worth's Modern museum. Leaving the filter on was necessary to produce the multiple iris-shaped ghosting pattern.
    00Unwj-182263584.jpg
     
  36. Without a controlled test any "evidence" people report is 100% anecdotal.​
    I don't see that Jim claimed his opinion was anything but an anecdote. He never used the word "evidence". You're refuting an argument that was never made.
     
  37. Regarding reflections, I do remove my KR 1.5 filter during sunrise and sunset shots to prevent the reflection of the sun ruining the shot. And I would do the same in any shooting situation like others have mentioned. I just find it so much easier to clean the filter than to clean the lens. Joe Smith
     
  38. Hey Lex, Nice idea about using the filters to intentionally add flare. I have some cheap filters in a box somewhere. I wonder what else they might be good for. Vaseline soft filter? Crossed screens?
     
  39. Eric Friedemann wrote: "Arguing with the Anti-Protective-Filterites is pointless. All these agruments devolve into silliness. The forces arrayed against the use of protective filters rely on anecdotal arguments that they accept as immutable truths. But when someone like Jim Tardio, whose probably done more shooting with more lenses in more places than the rest of us put together, says protection filters have saved his lenses from damage on numerous occasions, suddenly some sort of lab experiment is necessary to prove his veracity. Past experience has taught me the value of protective filters. But I don't ridicule people who choose not to use them."
    I'm not ridiculing anyone. Pro or anti, the UV/Protective filter debate will be better served with real-world evaluation of individual needs and scenarios. Jim would rather use UV filters? I've no business saying whether he should or not. But he doesn't know how many times his lenses have been saved by a UV filter; he's guessing. Without controlled tests it's only speculation.
     
  40. No real need for an argument, Douglas. Of course I don't know what would have happened every time something happened, but I do know that I've had several damaged filters...mostly from inadvertent impact with something. One time it was a urinal in a public bathroom (watch where you swing that camera when you unzip!) And I can safely say that the front lens element would have sustained some kind of damage had the filter not been there.
    Therefore, based on my repeated experiences, I keep a filter in place. Besides, I usually wipe off the filter many times throughout the day, and I'd rather it be the filter & not my front lens element.
    Incidentally, I don't use UV filters...I use the clear ones.
     
  41. I don't like to stop shooting to clean my lens out in the field. If I use a plain multi-coated protective filter, I can quickly wipe the dust off with a shirtsleeve and keep on shooting. I've never had any problem with filters affecting image quality.
     

Share This Page