I just picked up a mint (2nd hand) copy of this lens. It came with a filter(?) attached (Nikon L37c 77mm). Is it there just to keep the front element clean or does it serve some other purpose? Also, if it's just to keep the front glass clean, should I remove it, as I'm guessing it could, possibly, slightly degrade the final IQ of any images.
The previous owner put this filter on for protection. The 80-200/2.8 AF-s did not come equipped with a filter. I've rarely have a filter on my 80-200/2.8 AF-s because of the possibility of it degrading images.
Gary in SE Michigan, USA. Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera. D4, D810, D300 (720nm IR conversion), D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome) YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5 My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery
Thanks for the reply gpoole. I think I'll take it off then.
Have you used any filters on this lens, like a UV or ND. I'm asking, as I'm going on a 15 day tour of California (death valley, Yosemite national park, Sequoia national park, Humbolt Redwoods state park and of course the three main cities, LA, San Fran and San Diego) at the end of August, early September and was thinking I might need something for the harsh bright light. But not if they impact on IQ to much.
Thanks golfercat. I'll have a look for one as you've suggested. I'm really looking forward to going to California as I've never been that far west in the states before. Utah is the current furthest that I've been west.
Sat 13-Jul-13 06:42 PM | edited Sat 13-Jul-13 06:44 PM by P Kwok
It seems that you are not very familiar with lens filter. There are 2 schools. One believe that any filter will degrade the image quality, they will use a lens hood to protect the front element. I hope your lens have it.
The other school uses a filter to protect the front element against potential scratches, one commonly used filter is the B&W MRC filter.
I've only ever really used ND filters and when I did I wasn't really looking for any IQ degradation in my images. But now that I'm doing PP on my images, I'm now, obviously, more interested in this part of the photography process.
I think I'll go with a circular polarizing as suggested by everyone.
Sun 14-Jul-13 07:08 PM | edited Sun 14-Jul-13 07:09 PM by ajdooley
Nathan -- To use or not use a filter is a personal choice. I use them on all my lenses and have never felt I was losing much in the way of sharpness. I have possibly saved a front element on a 24-70mm f2.8 when I was caught by a blast of sand in an industrial situation and for sure, a filter saved a dent on the filter ring once. The filter was dented and cracked, and I replaced it. I use Nikon and B+W only, as they are known quality quantities. The Nikon LC-37 is a splendid filter for this purpose.
While a CP is a useful tool, it is not specifically for reducing harsh lighting. It's purpose to to reduce polarized light. Sunlight is polarized, to the greatest degree at right angles from the source (Sun). It is also polarized when it is reflected off a non-metallic surface, such as water, glass or painted metal (in which case the surface is the pain, and not the metal under it. This effect is seen as glare. It occurs at a maximum rate when light is bouncing off the surfaces at incidence angles between 32 and 47 degrees. I use my CP mostly when photographing scenes with water, where they may help make the water more transparent, or glass windows or motor vehicles.
I recommend that you google polarizing filters and learn more about how they work and when they can help before spending what they cost. A good 77mm is pretty expensive. And with our digital cameras, don't select a cheaper liner polarizing filter as a substitute for a circular polarizer (CP). An LP makes metering problematical.
I was looking at either B+W or hoya filters. I can't see the point in spending a lot for a lens and then skimping on a cheap filter. I was also going to get a ND filter too. I'm guessing that I'm able to use both a CP and ND filter at the same time.
Also one other question I have:
Is there any problem using 77mm filters on lenses that take smaller filters using a step up ring? I have the nikon 50mm f1.8D (which takes a 52mm filter) and the nikon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5D (which takes a 62mm filter). I ask this as with my upcoming trip I can't really afford (right now) to be buying filters for each lens, especially as I have very little camera equipment and need to also buy a monopod, camera bag (rucksack style) and about four more memory cards (as I only have one 8gb card) for the trip.
It is best practice to use a lens hood on all of your lenses all the time (except when using Polarizers or rectangular filter holders). Hoods help prevent flare and ghosting, as well as providing a first layer of protection for the front element of the lens.
If you have to use adaptor ring, I would suggest you to buy the largest filter for your lens group. In your case, you should buy a 77mm Circular polarizer, and ND filter. Then buy the step down rings. 77mm to 52mm, etc. This will be the cheapest way. This will avoid vignetting in your other 2 lens as well when using the filter.
Same here. I put a good quality UV filter on all my lenses. I've shattered one and it saved the lens. Enough motivation for me to use them on all my lenses. Was only on my 50mm 1.4 (not super $), but still nice piece of mind.
IQ degradation is possible, but good Filters are worth paying for. I usually stick with the higher end Tiffen, B+W, Hoya. Have a couple Nikon filters that work great too. Just don't skimp and get a no-name filter for $10 and put it on your $1800 24-70 2.8!
Like Brian said, I have a couple Step-up rings to use my 77mm filters on smaller lenses.
Be aware that some CP's limit light and can slow down your fast glass (i think 1-2 stops isn't uncommon - better filters usually = less stop loss). Or so says their marketing teams... I haven't looked recently and no CP expert, so please someone correct me if i'm way off base.
It can be a good thing like a ND, but also can be bad when you want to shoot wide open w/ available light.
I only carry my 24-70's hood (kinda huge itself), a rubber hood on my 50mm, or use my hand on the others. Until i get something worthy of a fixed or dedicated hood (12-24... drool).
>Same here. I put a good quality UV filter on all my lenses.
Just to be clear - that's not why I don't like the approach of using one (larger) filter with step-up rings - it's because of the difficulty fitting hoods (which I always use if possible).
In my case, I don't mount a protective filter except when I need one (near salt spray, for example). UV filtration is pointless with digital cameras and modern coated lenses anyway; a clear filter is more appropriate IF you need to protect the glass.
>>Same here. I put a good quality UV filter on all my >lenses. > >Just to be clear - that's not why I don't like the approach of >using one (larger) filter with step-up rings - it's because of >the difficulty fitting hoods (which I always use if >possible). > >In my case, I don't mount a protective filter except when I >need one (near salt spray, for example). UV filtration is >pointless with digital cameras and modern coated lenses >anyway; a clear filter is more appropriate IF you need to >protect the glass. > >
Sorry Brian. I agree on the step up in that it makes it difficult to use hoods. AND "I put a good quality UV filter on all my lenses". Which i didn't meant to imply was your choice.
Once more -- the CP is not a "universal filter." It is made to reduce polarized light. It also makes it difficult to mount a lens shade as it must be rotated to be set properly. If protecting the lens is primary, get a clear or UV filter.