If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
I have a nikon D100 I have heard on this forum that for correct exposure metering it is best not to use any uv/lens filter. It is better to use just a plain clear glass just for lens protection. Anyone has actualy seen the difference?
The best protection possible is a device pros rely upon, called a "Lens Cap". It is removed, exposing the raw glass to the world when photography is being done, and it is replaced for travel. The advantage is that a costly lens is not being reduced to the sharpness of a cheap filter.
The exception is when photographing extreme industrial activity such as sand-blasting. In this case, an underwater housing is recommended, since the whole camera is exposed to abrasive particles traveling at high velocity.
Since camera stores buy UV filters in bulk and sell them at 20 times their cost, it has been very profitable to build a myth of protection. Consider the force it would take to damage the lens as you are looking through the camera. Consider that the paramedics would be picking the camera bits out of your face and head in those circumstances - on the way to the ER or morgue.
If you are shooting in an enviroment with heavy objects flying about, a filter is not going to save your hide or your skull or your lens.
Do as the pros, and use your expensive glass as it should be used - unimpeded by cheap glass. Buy a lens-cap.
Whatâ€™s the point of spending loads of money on good lenses only to turn them into Coke bottles with the addition of a cheap filter. In addition, the 1/4 wave coating on modern lenses is very tough. So the risk of scratching the front element is quite small these days even with fairly rough treatment. But as Larry says you paid for the lens cap so why not use it?
Also the use of skylight filters with D capture is a no no as it will introduce sunburn type skin tones. I donâ€™t know the exact effect of UV filters on digital capture. But my approach is why add more complications. And I guess the same could be said for your exposure question. Ed, why not run some tests and let us know if there is a difference.
If you must use filters buy the most expensive ones available. However, since CCDs see the world quite differently to film stock, the use of filters designed for film should be done with care and only after they have been tested for effect.
Thak you larry, but I wonder if even a good nikon filter or even a clear nikon filter is ok.
If I understand you corectly, then it is better not to put any filter on the nikon lens unless the enviroment calles for one. Its just that I have always used a filter and the lens cap and now I feel I will be exposing this nice nikon lens to whatever if I take out this filter that has been on it ever since I bought it 4-5 years ago. Any how I guess I am resisting a change.
Thank you Craig, as I said before I am so used to using Nikon filter(37c) and the lens cap for protection(with N90s) film camera that it is kind of hard to be without it. However if I find out that it is efecting the picture quality, then I would take it out. If I could use a good glass filter(nikon) I would do that too.
Long ago when Multi-Coated lenses first became generally available, the Nikon rep came to where I worked to promote us upgrading to them. During the presentation, he butted a cigarette out on one and cleaned it with spit and a handkerchief.
I do carry a polariod filter, and on occasion have used it to good effect.
I also carry an 80B heavy blue filter, which does a reasonable job with the ubiquitous toxic-orange street-lights for night cityscapes, along with the camera's own white balancing. If course, it overcorrects household bulbs, so any lit windows in the shot come out quite blue - a trade off.
I see nothing wrong with using a filter when the situation demands it. Every photograph is a series of compromises, and sometimes it is worth inserting two more glass surfaces in the optical path in exchange for the effect that was demanded. I would never *THINK* of shooting with any filter, unless the image demanded it.
To reinforce Larry's earlier post, when I was in Europe years ago, I witnessed a rep (not Nikon sorry) write on the front of a very expensive MC lens with a ball-point pen and then clean it off with a rough woollen neck tie. These metal coatings are much tougher than most people realise. But donâ€™t try these neat tests out on older non-coated lenses or Canonâ€™s new optical plastic jobs.
With modern Nikkor lenses you can leave the â€œprotectiveâ€ filter off. UV filters for film work may have some merit but with DC it makes little sense.
If you are into infrared photography DSLRs with an IR filter gives some great results, much easier than IR film.
Thank you everyone, I guess I will just try and see if there is any difference in the picture quality with and without the clear filter, if I see any degeneration or exposure problem then I will leave it off for everyday photagraphy. I will let you know of the outcome. Again thanks to all for your Professional help. If anyone has more input please respond.