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

[juanjo_viagran]

Hi..

 

I have a few extra filters and I need to figure out which one to put on the

lenses and which to put on sale.

 

 

are the Nikon L37 better than:

 

Tiffen UV Protector

Tiffen SKY 1-A

Tiffen Haze-1

Hoya HMC UV[0]

PROMASTER SPECTRUM 7 MC 1A

B&W F-pro

 

and is the L37C better than the L37 ? (I guess the C is for coated?)

 

I know nothing about filters, have many and need only a few.

 

So, please help me decide, which are the best and worst from that list.!

 

Thanks.

 

 

PS.

I don't want the filter to create any effect, just protect the glass.

[alan_wilder1]

The Nikon is the best as it's coating is NIC ( Nikon's version of multi-coated) and slightly more scratch resistant than the others mentioned. The mount is also slimmer than most. The ranking of the others from best to last is Hoya, Promaster and Tiffen (usually uncoated).

[gman]

What Alan said. They are good filters...especially the L37c. You won't go broke buying them either.

[michael_bradtke]

I would rank them a little diferent then Alan

I would say B&W,Nikon,Hoya with Nikon and B&W being about equal.

I would use things like the tifen as a scrifical filter and I would not put the promaster on my lens.

 

BTW I dont keep filters on my lens's. I use them when I need them. Like a UV when I am at higher altitude. A skylight when I am at the beach with blowing sand or near smoke.

[joseph_smith3]

Based upon my ownership of both, I think the B+W filters are much better made than the Nikon ones. The Nikon L37C is better than the L37. I would not even consider any of the others you mentioned. I do not use the UV filters; instead I use a slight warming filter as my every day filter--the B+W KR 1.5. I do use the L37C inside some of my Nikon telephoto lenses. Joe Smith

[arnabdas]

The Nikon L37c filters are quite good, I have a couple. However, the rest of my filters are mostly B+W (and a few Heliopans). I found the B+W MRC brass-ring filters the easiest to clean and put on / take off. Heliopans are very good too. I had one Hoya Super HMC that was fine though not as easy to clean -- I can't find it anymore.

 

If you can afford it get B+W, alternatively the Nikon filters are fine too.

[photo5]

The Nikon filters are made by B+W. I buy new Hoya HMC Super UV filters from Duracom on ebay. I've gotten used Nikon and B+W filters in the past, when I worked at a camera repair shop. Older Hoya HMC filters are excellent too. TIFFEN and Promaster Specrum 7 are uncoated and should be avoided.

 

Dave

[arnabdas]

"The Nikon filters are made by B+W." - Dave Lee

 

I'm curious what's the source of this information? Their metal rings and coatings are so different I find it hard to believe.

[alan_wilder1]

Oops, I missed the B&W F-Pro in your question. If it's the MRC version, I would rank it first followed closely by the Nikon. I feel the B&W MRC is the best going of all filters as it's coating is the least reflective of any I've used and is easiest to keep clean.

[oskar_ojala]

I usually use B+W or Heliopan, both are very good. B+W with MRC is excellent. Hoya is worse, mainly in terms of mechanical quality, but the optics seem ok but I've only used the best Hoya. I only recently acquired a Nikon filter when buying a used lens, seems good, similar to Hoya. Avoid the cheap ones, I haven't used Tiffen or Promaster, but I have my doubts about them. I've never seen image quality degradation using B+W filters.

[keith_b1]

Ditch the Promaster/Tiffen stuff, but...never sell good quality filters or lens shades...as sure

as s**t you'll get some lens for which you'll need 'em

a few years down the line...

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"The Nikon filters are made by B+W." - Dave Lee</i>

<P>

Unless <a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=57">Schneider Optics</a> (a.k.a. B+W) in Bad Kreuznach, Germany has a secret factory in Japan, and unless Nikon has shared their proprietary NIC/SIC multicoatings found on the "c" filters (L37c, L1Bc, NC) with B+W, that seems highly improbable.<div></div>

[jonathan_walker]

Salesmen get so used to saying things like "Albinar lenses are really made by Zeiss" that they forget how silly it sounds to the reasonably informed reader.

[clark_roberts]

I know this thread is old but, are the Nikon L37C filters good to use on Digital?

[ShunCheung]

Nikon has replaced the L37C filters, which have a bit of a yellow tint, with No Color (NC) filters in the digital era. In these days if I need a protection filter, e.g. when I am shooting from a boat with some spray, etc., I use a Nikon NC filter.

[Vincent Peri]

I shoot Nikon manual focus cameras/lenses exclusively. Every one of my lenses has a Nikon L37c filter on it. I'd much rather clean finger prints off a filter than the front element of a lens.

 

By the way, way back in the late 70's when I was shooting Canon FD equipment, every one of my lenses had a Tiffen filter on it. Slide photos shot with the FD lenses/Tiffen filters compared very favorably to photos shot with my previous Leicaflex R lenses.

[ben_hutcherson]

As others have said, Nikon filters are superb.

 

Often, for my purposes, I will use B+W, Hoya, and Nikon pretty much interchangeably. I love the construction of the Nikons. Funny enough, I actually don't have a ton of B+W screw on filters-most of mine are Bay 50 for Hasselblad. As a mixed film and digital shooter, I still have some use for "obsolete" filters like the 81 series, and in fact a my primary polarizer is the Hoya 77mm "Moose" Warm CPL, which integrates a polarizer and an 81A filter.

 

I also won't necessarily knock Tiffens like some other folks do. Their biggest flaw is that most are uncoated, but in nasty conditions that translates into a filter that's a lot easier to clean than smudge-prone multicoated filters. My colored filters(for B&W work) are mostly Tiffen and Nikon, although I also have some generic brand ones in there also.

 

I consider Promaster to be the equivalent of "store brand" equipment these days. I actually have a handful of Skylight, FL, 85-series filters, and some B&W contrast filters branded for the local camera store that's still in business. The owner said that he doesn't know exactly when they sold them, but it would have most likely been during his dad's days of running and probably no later than the 1980s.

[ShunCheung]

Not sure that slight yellow tint in the L37C is noticeable or not. I can always stack 3 or 4 of them together and the difference becomes more obvious.

 

[rodeo_joe1]

I know this thread is old but, are the Nikon L37C filters good to use on Digital?

 

- In short, yes.

 

Longer answer: There's really little need to use UV filters these days, except as lens 'protectors' to keep dust and smudges off the front element.

 

If you really need UV filtration, you're better off seeking out a Nikon L39. These do have a slight yellow tint, and provide far greater UV cut than the L37c. The numbers refer to the cutoff wavelength, with the L37c cutting at 370nm, and the L39 cutting at 390nm, just within the visible spectrum.

 

I've seen other companies offering 390nm-cut filters as well. Maybe Hoya or B+W; I really can't remember which makes.

[ben_hutcherson]

- In short, yes.

 

Longer answer: There's really little need to use UV filters these days, except as lens 'protectors' to keep dust and smudges off the front element.

 

If you really need UV filtration, you're better off seeking out a Nikon L39. These do have a slight yellow tint, and provide far greater UV cut than the L37c. The numbers refer to the cutoff wavelength, with the L37c cutting at 370nm, and the L39 cutting at 390nm, just within the visible spectrum.

 

I've seen other companies offering 390nm-cut filters as well. Maybe Hoya or B+W; I really can't remember which makes.

 

Along those same lines, from my own measurements the Nikkor lenses I've tested cut off somewhere in the 370-380nm. Nikkor lenses are all I've bothered to drop in the spectrophotometer, but this cut-off is true of virtually all optical glass.

 

In fact, a typical UV-VIS spectrophotometer makes pretty extensive use of first surface mirrors for its optics, and most any transmissive optics are quartz. Instruments like my Varian Cary 50(and most Cary UV-VIS instruments, and really any other make of UV-VIS) can reliably go down to ~290nm, but the rule of thumb is that below ~400nm, your sample holder should either be quartz or some type of UV-transparent plastic.

[clark_roberts]

I've been using it and it works fine, works great on the 20mm f2.8.

[Mary Doo]

Not exactly the "right answer": It probably doesn't matter much 'coz it's better to take the UV filter off of your expensive and sharp lens before you hit the shutter. :D True.

[Sandy Vongries]

True.

Or not - this is an very dead old horse - beaten many times. Each side has true believers - I stand on the other side, quality filters and immaculate front elements even on half century old lenses. To each his or her own.

[Mary Doo]

I stand on the other side, quality filters and immaculate front elements even on half century old lenses. To each his or her own.

Just for discussion sake - not an argument. Think about it: Why are lenses that are especially sharp and excellent in other ways so expensive? Compare the cost to your most expensive filter - B+W, Singh-Ray, etc. Sure it was useful in film days for fielding off UV light, , but not so much on digital any more. Anyhow, I would definitely have a Circular polarizer or ND on when they serve a specific purpose and I would make sure to get a good one.

[Sandy Vongries]

Simply because fine lenses are expensive, quality filters make sense. I haven't had to clean a front element in decades. Clean, inspect and replace filters as needed - keep the lenses. To your point, even expensive filters are cheap compared to lenses. I heartily agree on on your filter list, but would add Grad ND which can help get some show stopping shots.