| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Filters?
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 12:27 PM on 07.07.11 |
| ->> So I have a Nikkor 70-200 VRII and need to buy a filter. What should I but and how much should I spend? I really just want something to protect the glass. |
|
Philip Johnson, Photographer
|
Garland | TX | USA | Posted: 12:47 PM on 07.07.11 |
->> So you spent a boat load of money on that nice 70-200 VRII. Don't get cheap on the piece of glass you put in front of it. If you want to protect the glass element use the lens cover.
For me I only use a circular polarizer and a graduated neutral density filter.
Just my 2 cents worth. |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 12:49 PM on 07.07.11 |
| ->> Well considering that anything you put in front of your lens effects the image quality the short answer is: the best filter that you can afford. Why put a $30 piece of glass in front of your $2,000 lens? I've used the Nikon UV and Skylight filters for years and years and am very happy with them. So that or B+W, Heilopan or at least the Hoya MC filters but nothing less. I actually don't recommend Tiffin after problems that I had with their rings binding and their less than stellar anti-reflective coatings. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:50 PM on 07.07.11 |
| ->> My 70-200 had a Nikon l37c on it until last year when I dropped the lens from about 4 feet onto a concrete floor. There was shattered glass EVERYWHERE. All of it was filter and nothing but a 1/8 scratch on the front element. Replaced with a Nikon clear filter ca. $55 mail order. Drop Jeff Snyder or Anne Cahill an email at Adorama and chances are you'll have it in tomorrow's UPS delivery. |
|
Brett Clark, Photographer
|
Elizabeth City | NC | USA | Posted: 3:39 PM on 07.07.11 |
| ->> From my personal experience, I have had great success with both Nikon UV and B+W for newspaper work. When I'm concerned about high quality for prints, I just unscrew it and try to be more careful while working. |
|
Jeff Jones, Photographer
|
Harrisburg | IL | USA | Posted: 4:40 PM on 07.07.11 |
->> Any good filter is better than no filter in day to day use. Image degradation from the filter is miniscule compared to the potential permanent damage to the front element if it is scratched. You may find that the filter may cause flare when shooting directly into a light source, in which case you might take it off and be very very careful.
I prefer the super multi coated variety of UV since it is much less likely to cause flare than a non-coated filter. There is a trade off, however, since the multi coating is more easily damaged. Don't scrimp on price.
My $0.02. |
|
Kristen Conway, Photographer
|
Culpeper | VA | USA | Posted: 6:23 PM on 07.07.11 |
| ->> I'll add another vote for a high quality UV filter. When I was at a paper I had a collection of filter rings with the glass shattered out hanging on the corkboard. I believe there were three(one from a car accident, one from me being clumsy and dropping the lens and one from a sideline flattening by a high school football player), but no broken lenses. The addition of one more layer of good quality glass is nothing compared to replacing a lens (and not being as fearful when using it.) |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|