Protective filters for 18-200vr ?

Hi all

just got my new 18-200vr.i have been looking at filters to protect the front glass.Is there a difference between the uv filter and protecter(clear) filter or possibly a skylight filter. I have looked at hoya,are there any other brands I should be considering.Which one should be used to get the most of the lens without really altering the natural colours.
many thanks

apologies if this has been already dealt with(I searched without success) and would be grateful for pointing me in the right direction

Get a nikon NC (Neutral Color) or Hoya UV HMC/SMC filter. Skylight filters can alter the colour a bit.

I like Hoya, and have been using the Digital Pro1 line on my larger lenses. These are thin filters which still have threads to accept a lens cap. The best prices I have found are at besteastern on eBay. I have only used the UV, but I see no reason why the clear protective filter wouldn't do fine.
--
D-200

I also just picked up the 18-200 vr lens and was looking to get the Hoya SMC 1A filter as well.

I have one question though - does this lens require (because of the 18mm widw end) the super thin, 3mm, Pro 1 filter or can I use the standard thickness one?

John

ravb said:

.i have been looking at filters to protect the front glass.

Click to expand...

Why?

Nikon say you should not use one all the time, the lens is not suited to use in harsh shooting conditions, the hood provides protection, insurance is much cheaper than a decent filter, as a guide replacing a front element costs less than twice the price of a good filter, and the insurance premiums indicate an expensive repair to a lens happens no more than once in 20 years.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography has more to do with the pictures you take than the equipment you own.

you don't need a slim one for this lens
--
some shots :
http://www.vagari.org

You don't want a 1A, it's a skylight. get either the UV or clear protective filter. You don't need thin on this lens, but I use Hoya Pro1 digital, and they are all thin. You may need the filter on a wide angle one day where thin is needed.
--

'A man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.'
Winston Churchill

Urban legend and again why not--it doesn't degrade the image, it keeps you from putting cleaning marks on lens, it protects the edge of the fron element, on and on and on--Now while you ae at it show or tell me where Nikon says not to use a protective filter--a good UV filters runs about $30--let's see what does a front element cost--Urban legend---ron s.

Leonard Shepherd said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

.i have been looking at filters to protect the front glass.

Click to expand...

Why?
Nikon say you should not use one all the time, the lens is not
suited to use in harsh shooting conditions, the hood provides
protection, insurance is much cheaper than a decent filter, as a
guide replacing a front element costs less than twice the price of
a good filter, and the insurance premiums indicate an expensive
repair to a lens happens no more than once in 20 years.
--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography has more to do with the pictures you take than the
equipment you own.

Click to expand...

--
Keeping it sane in an insane world is an inconvenience at an inconvenient time!!
http://www.pbase.com/ron9ron

ravb said:

Hi all
just got my new 18-200vr.i have been looking at filters to protect
the front glass.Is there a difference between the uv filter and
protecter(clear) filter or possibly a skylight filter. I have
looked at hoya,are there any other brands I should be
considering.Which one should be used to get the most of the lens
without really altering the natural colours.
many thanks
apologies if this has been already dealt with(I searched without
success) and would be grateful for pointing me in the right
direction

Click to expand...

ravb:

1. I use a Nikon NC, Hoya or Tiffen UV filter on all of my lenses for additional protection of my lenses in addition to the lens hood. You are going to hear all sorts of stuff about what "Nikon says". so I have supplied the link below so that you will see for yourself "what Nikon says" about this very issue.

2. In general, this is what Nikon says about use of their NC filters: "Neutral Color NC Filters: Available in attachment sizes 39mm, 46mm, 52mm, 62mm, 72mm and 77mm, these neutral-color filters serve as lens protectors. They do not affect color balance. In addition, multilayer coating prevents light reflection inside the glass, thus improving color rendition."

3. And, in other Nikon literature they actually state, the NC Clear filter can be "left on the lens full time to offer protection in addition to the lens hood".

4. Here's a Nikon link, that gives some insight to this (and, it's Nikon's most recent statement for this argument):

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=13987&p_created=1149087689&p_sid=f8-hKqCi&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTcwJnBfcHJvZHM9MCZwX2NhdHM9MCZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9cHJvdGVjdGl2ZSBmaWx0ZXJz&p_li=&p_topview=1

--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)

Leonard Shepherd said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

.i have been looking at filters to protect the front glass.

Click to expand...

Why?
Nikon say you should not use one all the time, the lens is not
suited to use in harsh shooting conditions, the hood provides
protection, insurance is much cheaper than a decent filter, as a
guide replacing a front element costs less than twice the price of
a good filter, and the insurance premiums indicate an expensive
repair to a lens happens no more than once in 20 years.
--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography has more to do with the pictures you take than the
equipment you own.

Click to expand...

Leonard Shepherd:

Please, reference, where Nikon says:

"Nikon say you should not use one all the time, the lens is not

Leonard Shepherd said:

suited to use in harsh shooting conditions, the hood provides
protection, insurance is much cheaper than a decent filter, as a
guide replacing a front element costs less than twice the price of
a good filter, and the insurance premiums indicate an expensive
repair to a lens happens no more than once in 20 years."

Click to expand...

--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)

Leonard Shepherd said:

guide replacing a front element costs less than twice the price of
a good filter,

Click to expand...

Have you ever had a glass element replaced? I can assure you it is not that cheap. Can you imagine replacing a 77mm convex glass for cheap?

Many lenses have their elements in groups, so very often you don't change only one but the whole group. Have a look at the cross section of the lenses 24-85mm, 14mm, 135mm, you'll tell me if it would cost less than two filters to fix. Again you are spreading an alarming misinformation here. It’s all made up stuff.

lanef said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

guide replacing a front element costs less than twice the price of
a good filter,

Click to expand...

Have you ever had a glass element replaced? I can assure you it is
not that cheap. Can you imagine replacing a 77mm convex glass for
cheap?
Many lenses have their elements in groups, so very often you don't
change only one but the whole group. Have a look at the cross
section of the lenses 24-85mm, 14mm, 135mm, you'll tell me if it
would cost less than two filters to fix. Again you are spreading
an alarming misinformation here. It’s all made up stuff.

Click to expand...

Leonard Shepherd:

1. This (your above reply) is not what I asked of you. You said that Nikon says to not use protective filters on lenses, while shooting or something to this effect.

2. All, I asked of you, was to list your reference or link to it, where Nikon has said this. (as I did with information I posted, from the Nikon Web Site, as part of my Post, that all of this is supposed to be in reply to)

3. Yet, all you have done instead, is to bring up a bunch of other hypotheticals, without answering what was requested, of you; and, that remains, to simply support the statement you made about "what Nikon says".

--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)

ron_9 said:

a good UV filters runs about $30--let's see what does a front element cost

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "good" - in UK around £52 by Nikon's standard and including taxes.

A front element for this lens from a pro Nikon repairer like Fixation probably costs around £70 including taxes and return shipping. In the UK for amateur use insurance including theft and any damage costs from £5.

Digressing Nikon no longer make UV's and Canon regard them as a special item for silver based black and white film primarily because modern lenses stop UV and digital sensors incorporate a UV filter on the surface.

If you think about it a couple of Nikon zooms and the 50mm f1.8 cost hardly more than $100 so $30 for your definition of a good UV sounds like a rip off.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography has more to do with the pictures you take than the equipment you own.

BRJR said:

Please, reference, where Nikon says:
"Nikon say you should not use one all the time,

Click to expand...

In DSLR instruction books under other accessories - filters - e.g. page 181 in the English Edition of the D200 instructions.

--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography has more to do with the pictures you take than the equipment you own.

lanef said:

Have you ever had a glass element replaced?

Click to expand...

Yes - £25 for the front element. We are talking the 18-200 which does not have an expensive front element group.

Please - do not spread misinformation or think before you reply - the 14mm you use as an example does not accept a front filter - neither do Nikon's 5 most expensive AF lenses.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography has more to do with the pictures you take than the equipment you own.

BRJR said:

1. You said
that Nikon says to not use protective filters on lenses, while
shooting or something to this effect m-

Click to expand...

True - shooting towards a light source.

BRJR said:

2. All, I asked of you, was to list your reference or link to it,
where Nikon has said this.

Click to expand...

In most DSLR instruction books - have you read yours?

Every survey I have seen shows over 66% go bare - probably higher now because of digital sensor issues. Over 95% of pros go bare because there living depends on ultimate optical quality.

If you want to degrade some of your image quality some of the time that is your right. If others do not want to degrade their image quality most of the time (the reason why most usually go bare) that is their right too.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Good photography has more to do with the pictures you take than the equipment you own.

Leonard Shepherd said:

lanef said:

Have you ever had a glass element replaced?

Click to expand...

Yes - £25 for the front element. We are talking the 18-200 which
does not have an expensive front element group.
Please - do not spread misinformation or think before you reply -
the 14mm you use as an example does not accept a front filter -
neither do Nikon's 5 most expensive AF lenses.
--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography has more to do with the pictures you take than the
equipment you own.

Click to expand...

Leonard Shepherd:

Here we go again, for how many times, thus far?

1. You, still offer a lot of comment, without answering the question as I posed to you, when I simply asked you to give reference or linkage to where you claim that Nikon says to "not use protective filters on lenses while shooting with them"; and, still, with this most recent Post from you, on this same topic, you have failed to do so.

2. I believe that most people familiar with Nikon lenses, already know that due to the construction of certain Nikon lenses, that one can not use front element filters on them (as contained in the link, below, that I am again listing, to support my claim; and, I am still waiting for your similar reference, from Nikon saying, as you stated: "Nikon says to not use protective filters while shooting with a lens").

3. But, the filter(s) in discussion, that originated this Thread, to begin with, and the related facts, as listed by Nikon in their link, below, are for the Nikon lenses that do permit front element filters, as are contained at this link, and that Nikon has made such filter(s) for; and, this is where Nikon make relevant comment, as I responded to in the original Post, that kicked off this Thread, for use of their (Nikon) "protective NC Clear and Nikon UV filters". If you have some other Nikon source to support your counter statement as to what you counter claim "Nikon says", please, similarly present that Nikon Source, as I asked for:

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=13987&p_created=1149087689&p_sid=f8-hKqCi&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTcwJnBfcHJvZHM9MCZwX2NhdHM9MCZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9cHJvdGVjdGl2ZSBmaWx0ZXJz&p_li=&p_topview=1

--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)

Leonard Shepherd said:

lanef said:

Have you ever had a glass element replaced?

Click to expand...

Yes - £25 for the front element. We are talking the 18-200 which
does not have an expensive front element group.

Click to expand...

If I remember I quote "as a guide replacing a front element costs less than twice the price of a good filter" you were talking in a general term.
No all of us have the 18-200 only.

In OZ, just to look at any lens, it will cost you $100. I don’t think any Nikon repairer would have all the elements of most lenses in stock. So, they will have to order it from overseas, the cost goes up and you will have to wait, God knows how long. The time to replace the glass and recalibrate the lens will cost you, plus taxes on top of that. I can buy a Hoya SHMC filter now for around $50. So I don’t think it is accurate to conclude replacing a glass will cost less than 2 times $50.
I find your analogy very simplistic.

Leonard Shepherd said:

lanef wrote:
the 14mm you use as an example does not accept a front filter -

Click to expand...

You are right on this one, the bulging front element does allow any filter.
My mistake for quoting this one.
Still, many zooms that accept any filter would not cost that cheap to fix.

Leonard Shepherd said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

Please, reference, where Nikon says:
"Nikon say you should not use one all the time,

Click to expand...

In DSLR instruction books under other accessories - filters - e.g.
page 181 in the English Edition of the D200 instructions.

--
Leonard Shepherd
Good photography has more to do with the pictures you take than the
equipment you own.

Click to expand...

Leonard Shepherd:

1. Here we go again, it's becoming quite interesting noting all the stuff you keep coming up with over a matter such as simply using a protective filter for the lenses that Nikon makes and recommends them for.

2. I am satisfied that you have finally given me a reference that I asked for, even though it certainly does not support your previously stated Post in this Thread that you said: Nikon says to not use them while shooting".

Actually, here are two direct quotes from "page 181 in the English Edition of the D200 instructions", as relate directly to the original Post in this Thread:

One Direct Quote, From Nikon: "The NC and L37C filters are recommended for protecting the lens" (Now, my words: This answers the Original Post in this Thread. So, yes go ahead and use a Protective Filter if you prefer to do so, period; that's your decision, but, using one, is supported by Nikon's Policy on using Protective Filters, even when this remains contoversial with others in online forums and elsewhere).

Another Direct Quote, From Nikon: "To prevent moire, use of a filter is not recommended when the subject is framed against a bright light, or when a bright light source is in the frame." (Now, my words: this is, for most "common-sense" and in no way what-so-ever says one should not, or that it's not recommended, in other shooting situations, to use "protective filters", as Nikon clearly says: " The NC and L37C filters are recommended for protecting the lens.)"

3. Hopefully, this matter is cleared up now --------- at, least it is as far as my participation with this issue; and, yes I will continue to use such filters, for their benefits as even stated by Nikon.

--
BRJR....(My cameras & lenses are listed in my profile)