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

[Jim_Tardio]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've had damaged elements. Replacing them is often equal to the cost of the lens...especially a zoom lens.<br /> I'd get a clear or a UV filter. I can't count how many times the filter has saved my lens from damage.</p>

[doug herr]

<p>

 

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=19848">Jim Tardio</a> wrote: <em>"I can't count how many times the filter has saved my lens from damage."</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Without controlled tests you don't know how many times the filter has saved your lens from damage.</p>

 

 

 

 

</p>

[chris_leck]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[kivivuori]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>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.<br>

http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html<br>

BR<br>

Esa Kivivuori<br>

Hyvinkää, Finland</p>

<p> </p>

[kivivuori]

<p>Hi again,</p>

<p>Sorry about that photo attachment :( Maybe this one is ok.</p>

<p>BR</p>

<p>Esa</p><div></div>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=193587">Douglas Herr</a> , Oct 20, 2009; 11:29 p.m. (<a href="../bboard/admin-edit-msg?msg_id=00Unhi">edit</a> | <a href="../bboard/admin-delete-msg?msg_id=00Unhi">delete</a> )</p>

 

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=19848">Jim Tardio</a> wrote: <em>"I can't count how many times the filter has saved my lens from damage."</em><br>

Without controlled tests you don't know how many times the filter has saved your lens from damage.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's a specious argument. Jim is well qualified to comment on his own direct experience, even in generalizations.<br>

<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Arguing with the Anti-Protective-Filterites is pointless. All these agruments devolve into silliness.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Past experience has taught me the value of protective filters. But I don't ridicule people who choose not to use them.</p>

<p>The poster didn't ask whether others believed in the efficacy of protective filters. He asked for suggestions on what filter to buy.</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>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.</p>

[doug herr]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=172915">Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins</a> <a href="../member-status-icons">wrote:</a> <em>"</em></p>

 

<p><em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=193587"><em>Douglas Herr</em></a><em> , Oct 20, 2009; 11:29 p.m. (</em><a rel="nofollow" href="admin-edit-msg?msg_id=00Unhi"><em>edit</em></a><em> | </em><a rel="nofollow" href="admin-delete-msg?msg_id=00Unhi"><em>delete</em></a><em> )</em><br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=19848"><em>Jim Tardio</em></a><em> wrote: "I can't count how many times the filter has saved my lens from damage."<br />Without controlled tests you don't know how many times the filter has saved your lens from damage.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>That's a specious argument. Jim is well qualified to comment on his own direct experience, even in generalizations"</em></p>

<p>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 <strong>without controlled tests you cannot predict whether in a particular scenario a protective filter will cause or prevent damage.</strong> 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.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>The poster didn't ask whether others believed in the efficacy of protective filters. He asked for suggestions on what filter to buy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. I contributed to the usual pro/con filter debate with my own first post.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>Without a controlled test any "evidence" people report is 100% anecdotal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>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</p>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>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?</p>

[doug herr]

<p>Eric Friedemann wrote: <em>"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."</em></p>

<p>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 <strong>know</strong> how many times his lenses have been saved by a UV filter; he's <strong>guessing</strong>. Without controlled tests it's only speculation.</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>No real need for an argument, Douglas. Of course I don't <strong>know</strong> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I don't use UV filters...I use the clear ones.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>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.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>I thought of this old p.net thread when I saw this blog post- proof that 50 worn protection filters will degrade image quality:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters</a></p>