This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you.

 Moderated by: chrisbet, Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
UV filter quality   -   Page   2
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost



Posted: Sun Mar 17th, 2019 07:12
 
11th Post
jk



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts: 6987
Status: 
Offline
Yes you are correct. 
My older units are metal but the new Z series caps are plastic.  I dont know if that is scratchier than metal of not.

I guess the new stuff is ABS.  Robert what are your thoughts?  ABS is pretty hard or even steel like but will it scratch the surface coating.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none
 




Posted: Sun Mar 17th, 2019 15:05
 
12th Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4572
Status: 
Offline
Robert wrote:
Yea, my recommendation is don't waste your money.  Even the very best/most expensive can degrade the image, especially when backlighting is in the frame.

Possible exception is photographing heavy seas in gale force winds due to the spray of salty/sandy water, in that case a clear plastic bag over the entire equipment is a good idea.

I tried all manner of UV filters, from the best Nikon and Hoya to the cheapest unbranded and all caused ghosting and degradation of image to some extent and the worst wasn't the cheapest.  The occasional scratch on the front element causes less degradation, except perhaps directly into the Sun when it might have an effect.

...but more degradation to its resale value.:devil:

I personally prefer a polariser. It gives far greater improvement in images than UV. I always leave the camera lens hood in place (even in the bag) ....it adds a bit of distance protection.



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Thu Mar 21st, 2019 18:40
 
13th Post
novicius



Joined: Sun Aug 12th, 2012
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Once every so often I come across this topic...apart from Protecting the Front Element , a well thought-out UV Filter will Improve / Enhance the Photo , do n`t take my word for it...here is a Site from a Lab in Poland ( English is Good ) that Thoroughly Investigates / Tests Many UV and Polarizing Filters and Lenses , Camera`s etc.,...Explaining How and with What Equipment it was done...Here`s a Link to their frontpage :

https://www.optyczne.pl/inne_testy.html

I myself have had a UV filter of Good Make on my Very first Lens which I still have ,and on ALL my Other Lenses from Personal Experience I can Assure you that Hoya Multi Coated Filters rank among the Best and for a reasonable fee...also have Nikon which is just as Good but are costly..B&W is Mechanically Better and Very Costly as Rings are made of Brass therefore Never get Stuck ( which has happened a couple of times with the HMC filters which are made of Aluminium ) , other than that HMC is my Preference....for Certain events ( graduated ND filter f.ex. ) I use a China made knock-off Cokin system , which I started with the Original Cokin made in France ( Chromo Filter S A ), the knock-off is just as Good ( Actually Cokin is now made in China and Rumour has it that Both Original and Knock-off are made by same Mnfg`r ) , and are made of " Optical Resin ", reminiscent of Kodak Wratten Filters , yet Optical Resin is more Durable, and Optical Quality is Superb !!

Rest to say : I am Awaiting the Arrival of Two 77mm UV HMC filters for my PC-E Nikkor 24 f3.5 and PC-E Nikkor 85 f2.8 , these Lenses are the Epitaph of Optical Quality and yet, I am Confident the HMC`s will Improve on matters ,so No Hollow words here , but based on a Solid Foundation of Experience gathered over the course of FIFTY Years of Practical Use.



____________________
Back in Danmark

I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment

The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets.
 




Posted: Fri Mar 22nd, 2019 02:42
 
14th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
If I ever get the Hoya 77mm UV filter off the front of my 80-200 f/2.8, I will gladly send it to you.  When I got my Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 it was fitted with a 127mm? Hoya UV filter which had to be destroyed to open up the lens.  I was sad about that, they are VERY expensive.  I suspect the one on my 80-200 will have to be destroyed to get it off, maybe there is some trick to get it off but the Nikon service guy's tried and gave up.

I have numerous images I took in tests which disagree totally with arguments for them.  They are to be found in an early post on this forum, the loss of contrast is dramatic, removal of the filters completely restored the expected contrast. I will try to find them on my system.  It's most pronounced when there is back or side lighting.

As for UV contamination, very few lenses pass UV in any great amount and the IR/UV filter permanently fitted to the sensor limits the admission of Infra Red and Ultra Violet light which can reach the sensor.

If you feel the UV filters improve your photography that's fine, we all have different perspectives.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Fri Mar 22nd, 2019 04:42
 
15th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
It was July, 2009.  That was before this forum had it's last change of software, so unfortunately the thread is gone forever.  However, I have found the images and even better, they are notated with the makes and details of the filters I tried in the experiment I carried out.

I was using a D1x with  my Nikkor 50mm f1.4 lens at the time. It all  started because I wanted to take a side-lit photo of my son, Christopher.  I was experimenting with the lighting and positioning the camera and subject to get the best effect. I didn't realise at first but the contrast was being seriously reduced.  Then the penny dropped, the lighting was causing the problem but why?

I tried several 52mm UV filters and the effect varied somewhat so I went the whole hog and removed the UV filter entirely.  Viola! Contrast restored, then I realised there was ghosting which at first I hadn't understood.

This was the first image, the UV filer was not marked with a manufacturers name. Christopher wasn't a good sitter!
#1


This was the second image, the UV filer was not marked with a manufacturers name.
#2


This is the third image, this filter was marked 'Helios UV'.
#3


This is the fourth image, this filter was marked 'Nikkor L39'.
#4


This is the fifth image, the filter was marked 'Hoya Skylight'
#5


Finally, the sixth image, with NO FILTER.
#6


This is the picture I wanted, taken some time after the above series of test exposures, once I had satisfied myself that the UV filter was to blame.



I took many other exposures at the time hence the various degrees of boredom on Christopher's face as I tried the different filters and various positions to try to minimise the glare and ghosting.  Those tests convinced me that the perceived benefits of using UV filters were far outweighed by the real and serious image degradation I experienced.  I also recognise similar effects in images which I couldn't understand why they were lack-lustre, I now put that down to using a UV filter.

The 'better' filters didn't perform better than the unbranded filters, in fact image #1 with an unbranded filter could be considered among the least affected.

I would be very interested is someone else fancied doing a similar test series...  Since then I dumped all my UV filters except the one which seems to be glued to my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 trombone lens.  I would dearly like to remove that but fear the forces needed to remove it would do damage to the lens, so I have to weigh that against the effects it has on my images.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Fri Mar 22nd, 2019 04:56
 
16th Post
chrisbet



Joined: Thu Feb 7th, 2019
Location: Leigh On Sea, Essex , United Kingdom
Posts: 1518
Status: 
Online
Interesting - I presume the ghosting is caused by light being reflected from the surface of the front element and bouncing off the interior surface of the filter - in which case the quality of the filter itself is of little influence.

As for the stuck filter, have you tried gently warming the lens and using a rubber band on the filter rim to increase grip?



____________________
If it is broken it was probably me ....
 




Posted: Fri Mar 22nd, 2019 07:16
 
17th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
chrisbet wrote:
Interesting - I presume the ghosting is caused by light being reflected from the surface of the front element and bouncing off the interior surface of the filter - in which case the quality of the filter itself is of little influence.

That's my take, in fact I think the 'better' coatings may reflect more and therefore be worse.  I do accept there may be situations where a filter might be of some use but without experimenting I believe it's impossible to recognise those situations, certainly for me anyway, so I take aboard the simplistic saying that putting cheap glass in front of expensive glass is not a good idea.  Like I say, there is already a very high quality UV/IR filter in front of the sensor which regulates the UV transmission to exacting standards so from a UV standpoint it's duplicating the function.

As for the stuck filter, have you tried gently warming the lens and using a rubber band on the filter rim to increase grip?

I have tried many approaches, my buddy Nes, who deals in Nikon lenses and cameras gave up short of breaking something, he used a filter wrench.  I took it to the NPS roadshow at Manchester and asked the technician to try to get it of without destroying anything and he and his buddies gave up.  I will live with it.  It's a superb lens even with the filter so I don't want to compromise it simply to remove a filter.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Fri Mar 22nd, 2019 09:15
 
18th Post
chrisbet



Joined: Thu Feb 7th, 2019
Location: Leigh On Sea, Essex , United Kingdom
Posts: 1518
Status: 
Online
Following up your post I looked into my 55-200 lens to see if I could determine any internal reflections from the cokin filter fitted by its previous owner. I couldn't so thought I would remove the filter - it was stuck solid!

So I tried the rubber band trick - not moving. I tried a rubber bottle lid gripper thing we have for getting tops off jars and that didn't work despite having the mechanical advantage of a "handle".

Thinking about the very fine threads involved I wondered if they were damaged in some way and tried gently tapping round the filter with a light screwdriver shaft held at a 45 degree angle to keep it well clear of the glass - just tapping the serrated edge of the filter ring - after a couple of rounds of tapping the filter just unscrewed easily - maybe the vibration loosened its grip?



____________________
If it is broken it was probably me ....
 




Posted: Fri Mar 22nd, 2019 09:47
 
19th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
Most likely, tapping the vicinity of the threads would possibly release my 77mm filter off my 80-200, I might give it a try over the w/e, am busy painting the kitchen doors right now.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Fri Mar 22nd, 2019 10:30
 
20th Post
chrisbet



Joined: Thu Feb 7th, 2019
Location: Leigh On Sea, Essex , United Kingdom
Posts: 1518
Status: 
Online
Robert wrote:
Most likely, tapping the vicinity of the threads would possibly release my 77mm filter off my 80-200, I might give it a try over the w/e, am busy painting the kitchen doors right now.
No your not - you are sitting at the mac .... :lol:



____________________
If it is broken it was probably me ....
 

Reply
1st new
This is topic ID = 1684     Current time is 05:35 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  Next Page Last Page    
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Camera Accessories and Extras. > UV filter quality Top

Users viewing this topic

Post quick reply

Go to top
Go to end
Messages
Home
Recent topics
Unread posts
Last posts
Splash

Current theme is Modern editor



A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you.


Hosted by Octarine Services

UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0618 seconds (65% database + 35% PHP). 85 queries executed.