filter/lens protection for Nikon D70 18-70 standard Kit lens
Mals
Right now I am thinking primarily of protecting the lens from dust etc.
Not sure if I should go for the UV filter for that purpose.
If so which brand should I buy? Thanks!
Wayne Moses
"Mals" <mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote in message
news:cNednbHs8M6...@comcast.com...
For a UV filter, brand does nto really matter. Get a thin-ring multi-coated
filter and you would be all set.
--
Regards,
Wayne
Nikon D70
AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5/4.5G ED
AF Nikkor 70-300mm f4/5.6G
Mals
Is a UV filter also the most generic filter, which I can leave on the lens
most of the time?
And if you were to suggest a brand or two, what might those be?
"Wayne Moses" <wmo...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6KgKc.3852$WP1...@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Randall Ainsworth
<mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote:
> Would somebody be able to advice which filter I should buy for Nikon D70?
>
> Right now I am thinking primarily of protecting the lens from dust etc.
> Not sure if I should go for the UV filter for that purpose.
I'd go for none...don't need any cheap piece of glass mucking up the
image.
Mals
But would I not expose the lens face to dust and such other things, if I did
not use a cover?
Although the risk of introducing distortion does exist!
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:170720041550453975%r...@nospam.techline.com...
Randall Ainsworth
<mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote:
> That is what I was worrying about.
> But would I not expose the lens face to dust and such other things, if I did
> not use a cover?
>
> Although the risk of introducing distortion does exist!
I've never been a fan of UV/skylight filters. But then, I'm careful
with my equipment.
Mike Kohary
wrote:
>"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>news:170720041550453975%r...@nospam.techline.com...
>> In article <cNednbHs8M6...@comcast.com>, Mals
>> <mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote:
>>
>> > Would somebody be able to advice which filter I should buy for Nikon
>D70?
>> >
>> > Right now I am thinking primarily of protecting the lens from dust etc.
>> > Not sure if I should go for the UV filter for that purpose.
>>
>> I'd go for none...don't need any cheap piece of glass mucking up the
>> image.
>
>That is what I was worrying about.
>But would I not expose the lens face to dust and such other things, if I did
>not use a cover?
I'm with Randall on this one. The "risk" of exposing the lens face to
dust is negligible. Of course it will be exposed to dust - so would a
filter! That's what dust cloths are for. :) Besides, dust won't
harm your lens anyway. Do always keep the lens cap on when you're not
taking pictures, just to keep it protected and clean.
Mike
D.R.
"Mals" <mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote in message
news:cNednbHs8M6...@comcast.com...
A high quality thin Circular Polarizer.
YoYo
"Mals" <mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote in message
news:waOdnQB6CM6...@comcast.com...
Lisa Allen
filter is a good choice for leaving on the lens- I prefer and use B+W & Hoya
they both have mulit coatings and are good quality . Tiffen also sells a
multicoating UV filter for short money ( although I can't review it b/c i've
never used that one). Also I have in the past used an skylight 1A filter as
a protetor it also requires no exposure compensation when used like the UV
filters.
Hope the info is useful in your decision. ;) !
Lisa
"Mals" <mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote in message
Randall Ainsworth
<DR@NewZealand> wrote:
Oh, that's a brilliant idea. Just chop off a stop or so all the time.
Lisa Allen
moot point -no matter what you'd want to keep your lens clean of dust..
filter or not. A lot of people that use filters as a tiny bit of extra
insurance do so because they are of the school that they would rather
replace a filter if it gets scratched than to replace a lens ( cost wise)
people that recommend filters of higher quality do so to make sure that you
aren't detrimental to your own efforts. after all cheap filters on a nice
lens = a crap shoot of poor quality outcome. If you are the only one that
handles your equipment and know that you are very gentile with it- then
maybe you would be better off forgoing the filter ? I work with a lot of
children's groups through out the year and sometimes the little darlings
just can't help but put their fingers all over everything ! I know everyone
situation and opinion is different.. so here is some "salt" !
Take Care- Lisa
"Mike Kohary" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
news:21ejf0tfvk5i0ai7e...@4ax.com...
C J Campbell
to protect the lens at all times. You see this in the instructions for that
$1400 80-400 mm zoom, too. Apparently Nikon does not believe that the "cheap
piece of glass" mucks up the performance of the lenses.
Randall Ainsworth
<christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, Nikon wants to sell you their overpriced filters.
D.R.
No, not all the time. But many consider a C/P the only filter one needs, used
sparingly.
Randall Ainsworth
<DR@NewZealand> wrote:
> No, not all the time. But many consider a C/P the only filter one needs, used
> sparingly.
A polarizer is always going to make you lose at least a stop. It's
stupid to have one on all the time. A polarizer is like salt on your
food...it should be used sparingly.
D.R.
Depends how much you like salt. ;-)
Agreed though.
Wayne Moses
"Mals" <mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote in message
> Thanks!
>
> Is a UV filter also the most generic filter, which I can leave on the lens
> most of the time?
UV or Skylight 1A are the types most people use. Th eSkylight tends to be a
mite warmer.
> And if you were to suggest a brand or two, what might those be?
Depends on hw much you want to spend. In my case I find Tiffen filters to be
very good bang for the buck and in keeping with my modest photography needs.
I even got some Quantarays (Wolf/Ritz Canera house brand) for a good price
one day. Make sure you get multi-coated filters though. Makes a difference.
Wayne Moses
> I'd go for none...don't need any cheap piece of glass mucking up the
> image.
I know where you are coming from, but for the levels of expertise of most of
us, the benefits of protection far outweighs the potential of damage to the
lens. I doubt if there would be that much of a difference in the pictures we
take, with and without a good multi-coated filter.
Wayne Moses
"C J Campbell" <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10fkvmj...@corp.supernews.com...
Hehehe ... what the he** does Nikon know ... :-)
Wayne Moses
> No, Nikon wants to sell you their overpriced filters.
Hmmm .... did they say a Nikon filter?
I don't think that they care a hoot which filter you put on your lenses.
They don't make enough on filters for this to make sense. They more than
make up for any filter sales losses on the sales of their lenses .... which
most would agree are superb and are best for their Nikon bodies.
I for one would not buy Nikon filters unless they are priced reasonably.
C J Campbell
>
> "C J Campbell" <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:10fkvmj...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Nikon recommends in the instructions for the lens that you use an NC
> filter
> > to protect the lens at all times. You see this in the instructions for
> that
> > $1400 80-400 mm zoom, too. Apparently Nikon does not believe that the
> "cheap
> > piece of glass" mucks up the performance of the lenses.
>
> Hehehe ... what the he** does Nikon know ... :-)
Of course, I use a haze filter anyway -- I do a fair amount of aerial
photography. I would hate to try cleaning a lens after a bug hits it at 130
mph.
Mals
Now, I am to decide between a C/P, UV filter and/or a haze filter. The
choice needs to be between the former two, I believe.
Protecting the lens does appear like the right thing, although there is a
risk of losing picture quality.
Perhaps you could also quickly point me in the direction of literature which
can help me decide whether I should go for C/P or UV filter.
Thanks once again!
Mark Kovalcson
"Mals" <mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote in message
You don't want a CirPol on your lens unless you are shooting through glass,
water or are trying to reduce reflections. Otherwise you are losing light!
This is a bad thing because it means that you would either need to increase
your ISO setting or drop your shutter speed or open your aperture. I don't
need a circular Polarizer except very rarely.
A good UV filter is good for protection. Then you are not wiping your lens
directly all the time. I find that there are many occasions when you can get
condensation on your lens that you would rather be wiping a filter than the
actual lens.
The best filters have coatings to reduce reflections between the filter and
lens. The best filters are usually by brands like Hoya and B&W. Hoya's HMC
filters are very good. Be careful about getting their "Pro" filters because
they have a very shallow lip and you won't be able to secure your lens cap
any more. I use the Pro Filters on my video equipment because the lens
cover attaches to the hood.
D.R.
"Mark Kovalcson" <mkova...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zrydnY_Wp5P...@comcast.com...
>
> "Mals" <mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote in message
> news:FoqdnbhCvJh...@comcast.com...
> > Thank you all for the extensive discussion.
> >
> > Now, I am to decide between a C/P, UV filter and/or a haze filter. The
> > choice needs to be between the former two, I believe.
> > Protecting the lens does appear like the right thing, although there is a
> > risk of losing picture quality.
> >
> > Perhaps you could also quickly point me in the direction of literature
> which
> > can help me decide whether I should go for C/P or UV filter.
>
>
> You don't want a CirPol on your lens unless you are shooting through glass,
> water or are trying to reduce reflections. Otherwise you are losing light!
> This is a bad thing because it means that you would either need to increase
> your ISO setting or drop your shutter speed or open your aperture. I don't
> need a circular Polarizer except very rarely.
A circular polarizer enables you to get insanely fantastic deep blue skys with
super white clouds. It works well for black'n'white also. Only rarely do I use
one for cutting reflections. Pretty much all of my sunny day landscapes use one
where possible.
Lisa Allen
You've already heard my .02 on why .. I prefer what I use- And a lot of good
advice from great people.
I just wanted to ask you what you intend or most like to make photographs of
?
That might help you in you buying decision to know weather or not you'd
benefit from the suggestions of other things like the polarizer, nd filters
etc.. but then again seen as how you are just simply asking about a
protective filter I think maybe some of us have overloaded you with other
things ? A majority ( not all ) of photographers-amateur, hobbyist and pro
alike- find that at some point the need the use of ND's , polarizers, find
they like the effects of warming filters etc.. but if that's something which
is beyond your comprehension at this point- just flat out don't worry about
it ! you'll find the need and ask for assistance when you do . Any filter
which will make you loose f/stops to have on as an every day filter is kind
of like making things difficult for yourself when you are trying to figure
them out in the 1st place....or at least I would think so ? To each is own-
good luck !
Mals
shoot for the record. :)
The C/P usage sounds interesting! Very light skies indeed are not as
pleasing as blue skies... that said I need to get there from an expertise
perspective. I suppose I will get a UV filter to start with. And I guess I
will have the challenge of figuring out the f/stops when I am trying to
learn them in the first place. I might try to use the filter and try without
it too.
I did hear that occasional cleaning of the lens with appropriate solutions
and brushes is not likely to scratch the lens...
Thanks again!
"Lisa Allen" <grays...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QQOKc.11374$W86....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
C J Campbell
"Mals" <mxsim...@yaxhoxo.cox> wrote in message
> Thank you all! Certainly a lot for me to digest. And Lisa now I am trying
to
> shoot for the record. :)
>
> The C/P usage sounds interesting! Very light skies indeed are not as
> pleasing as blue skies... that said I need to get there from an expertise
> perspective.
Sky color is easily adjusted digitally. In fact, you can do a much better
job than a C/P filter.
us...@nospam.please
degrees to the sun and with wide angle lenses you can end up with an
uneven sky because the lens is catching more that just the part of the
sky that is at 90 degrees to the sun. And you will loose a stop or more.
You also don't always need a circular pola, I use a linear pola with
good effect. But either way it is not a good choice if you are wanting
to leave a filter in place to protect the lens. A UV is the best choice
and you will not be able to detect any loss in image quality if you buy
a good quality filter. As to whether to use such a filter at all, it
really depends on your type of work. I use UV filters on my lenses
because I do mostly landscapes especially seascapes and I live in a very
windy place with lots of dust blowing around. Without the the filters I
would have nasty sea spray all over my front element and I would be
cleaning it so often often I would have scratched it by now and I would
rather throw away a scratched filter than a lens. But if you, for
instance, work mostly in the studio then no filter should be needed for
protection.