chris_andro Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 My latest mindset is to buy only quality glass and avoid the endless upgrades to finally end up with quality glass. My first purchase in this direction, although not very exotic, is the Nikor 50mm f/1.4. What filter, (52mm), can you recomend just to protest the lens, if you recommend using a filter at all. Thank you all again in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_andro Posted June 14, 2008 Author Share Posted June 14, 2008 Sorry, I forgot to add, a filter that won't diminish (a least not noticeably), the optical quality on the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 What kind of camera will you be using it with? Film or Digital. Most probably either a UV filter or a NC filter. As for brand.... Either Nikon, Singh Ray or a B+W would be my choices... Good luck Lil :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_andro Posted June 14, 2008 Author Share Posted June 14, 2008 Thanks Lil, and sorry for the lack of info. I'm using a D70's now but plan to upgrade to a D300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Nikon has a number of fine lens hoods that will give you a large "bumper" to protect the lens, and will reduce flare (while even the best filters will contribute to it). My 50mm f1.4 wears the Nikon HS-9, a snap in metal hood. The Nikon center pinch lens cap can snap into the center of the hood. The hood is also reversible, if you're short on storage space. I'm not, mine rides facing forward. B+W makes excellent screw in metal hoods. For film or full frame, get the 52mm normal. FOr digital, try the 52mm telephoto. Some argue that screw in hoods are better protection than snap in hoods... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victorwei Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I'm putting a Hoya Pro-1 Digital Clear filter on my new 50mm f1.8. It's supposed to be "neutral" with no added effects on colour or light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 You are fortunate that you only need a 52mm filter. A Nikon clear one is only $27, but multi-coded Hoya, B+W, etc. are all fine. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/121292-REG/Nikon_2479_52mm_Clear_NC_Glass.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcooper Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 All my lenses wear a 'protective' filter, and it's saved many lenses from many chips and scratches over the years. The only time the protective filter comes off is for shooting into the sun - sunrise and sunset shots. The rest of the time, it's on the lens as a strict rule of mine. This goes for all my cameras - digital and film, 35mm, 6cm, and LF. These days, I use only multicoated filters (on both sides if I can get it) strong UV or Skylight filters (skylight takes out the UV and adds a tiny bit of warming) from either Hoya or B+W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 I've been taking outdoor photos for at least the last 20 years, often in some pretty extreme conditions. I don't use "protective" filters. I think they are a rip off. They certainly have caused me problems with flare and ghosting and that's why I don't use them. I've never had a single lens damaged from not having a filter on, and I use my lenses almost daily. I do have some fairly expensive lenses, too. What I do use is the lens cap. That is designed to protect the lens and is FAR tougher than any flimsy glass. I also use the lens hood which deflects a lot of crud from hitting the lens. I will sometimes use a filter on a lens if I'm close to a waterfall (the spray contains grit), but that's almost always going to be a polarizer anyway. I also have used them in dust storms and other extreme dust conditions such as grain harvest shots. Other than that, yes, I definitely have had image degradation problems from using even the best filters. A couple of months ago I bought a lens from eBay. It came with a goofy UV filter. I emailed the guy and told him to take it off and throw it away before shipping the lens. Here's a link that discusses the issue. It made a believer out of me! Again, I have never once had a lens damaged because it didn't have a filter on it. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml Kent in SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 Much as I respect Mike Johnston's opinions, much of what he writes is tongue in cheek and intended to be deliberately provocative. He'd probably be the first to suggest doing your own testing: your own lenses, your own filters, your own photographic circumstances. And I'll be the second to advise the same. Any dogmatic, inflexible opinion about the use of filters is wrong, whether pro or con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now