Clear or UV or Skylight Filter?

Don't bother with what you've selected, save your money for the 70-300vr.
--
ABA DABA

Aspiring Shutterbug said:

Thanks for all the valuable input.

So, seems like the best choice would be the Nikon NC filter rather than the UV filter then if I were to put on a filter.

B+W is supposed to be a good brand but has anyone compared their filters to the Nikon NC filter?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I have both Nikon NC and B+W 007 filters on certain lenses that have shallow hoods that offer little mechanical protection. Both are very clear. The B+W multicoating is less squeaky when you clean it with lens tissue.

In answer to your original question, UV filters will give your photos a light yellowish tint; Skylight (1B) has a magenta tint; and clear should have no tint at all.
--
-KB-

songeun7 said:

I have been using B+W UV filters and I thinking about changing to Nikon NC filters but I am not sure if it is worth to change.

Click to expand...

No need.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

No direct comparison I am afraid, I moved up from a D200 17-55 combo, that lens was flitted with a Nikon L1b, which I understand is nearer neutral than the UV version, as soon as I purchased the 35 and 85 the NC filters went on, I have not noticed any significant differences but I shoot everything in raw so I do have flexibility to make adjustments.
--

A selection of my images can be found at http://www.photo-genesis.net follow the galleries link then select the Jacks gallery

songeun7 said:

I have been using B+W UV filters and I thinking about changing to Nikon NC filters but I am not sure if it is worth to change. I would like to hear from people who have used these two filters.

Click to expand...

I did a comparison of a B+W 010 MRC, a Marumi DHG clear filter, and no filter at all under controlled lighting conditions designed to minimize flare. Compared to no filter, the B+W "robbed" one of about 2% of the incoming light, concentrated mainly in the purple range. As a result, it imposed a color shift of about 25 degrees K from lights rated at 5300K.

The Marumi "robbed" one of about 0.7% of the incoming light and did not impose a color shift. In a side-by-side comparison, of the resulting shots, people were able to pick out the UV shot from the others with some consistency. Without a reference or under less controlled shooting conditions, the effect would not be noticeable.

So while the costs of using the B+W over a clear protector are small, with modern gear there's no technical benefit to offset those costs. So for the vast majority of shooters, I don't recommend buying UV filters.

In your case, though, since you already own the B+W filters, switching to Nikon NC's would have a real cost. Whether it's worth it is between you and your pocketbook. Personally, I decided to keep my B+W 010 MRC's, but I only use protective lenses under adverse environmental conditions. And on rare occasions, I do shoot with gear which can benefit from UV filtration.

--
I miss the days when I used to be nostalgic.

Michael, thank you so much for the detail information. I would buy B+W MRC clear filter (007M) from now on. I just do not want the filter to affect the color of the picture at all. All I want is to protect the lens. I may consider Nikon NC filter but I just like a quality of B+W filters.

Thanks to all. So, I've decided that I should only get a clear filter and not UV or Skylight.

Is it worth paying the extra money for B+W 007 versus Nikon NC? Also, for B+W, there seems to be a few variants of the 007 filter. Any idea what are the key differences between them?

Aspiring Shutterbug said:

Thanks to all. So, I've decided that I should only get a clear filter and not UV or Skylight.

Is it worth paying the extra money for B+W 007 versus Nikon NC? Also, for B+W, there seems to be a few variants of the 007 filter. Any idea what are the key differences between them?

Click to expand...

From my experience, based on your needs, the Nikon NC will do exactly what you wish. Don't forget the lens hood can also be very helpful and watch for the NC enhancing flare in rare situations. Good Luck

High profit item that is designed to fatten the dealer ... use the lens hood at all times and you will get as much protection from a fall, plus you will get better contrast instead of worse (extra air to glass interface) ...
--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

Aspiring Shutterbug said:

Is it worth paying the extra money for B+W 007 versus Nikon NC? Also, for B+W, there seems to be a few variants of the 007 filter. Any idea what are the key differences between them?

Click to expand...

I like the brass rings of the B+W and, all other factors being equal, would be willing to pay about an extra 10-15% for them. That's purely a subjective, personal, call.

The things to look for in B+W filters:
-- MRC or non-MRC (I would not buy a non-MRC filter for full time use).

-- Brass or Aluminum alloy rings. (B+W does make some alloy rings for Asian markets).

-- Thick ring, thin ring without front filter threads, thin ring with front filter threads. (Roughly in order of increasing price).

--
I miss the days when I used to be nostalgic.

Mako2011 said:

Along those lines it then follows that those with the 70-200 f2.8 would be served well to add a protective NC as it's front element is ED glass

Click to expand...

Damn, you scared me for a moment. Anyway, the front element is hardened and coated non-ED glass on the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. The second element in the first group is ED, but it's behind that first one.



Without enlarging the image on the Nikon site, I can see how'd you not see it. Now, don't worry me like that. I don't own that lens, but might some day and was thinking I'd need to purchase the first protective filter I'd have purchased in the last 35 years. Prior to that, I bought and used them myself, but learned better.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile via Plan

Mako2011 said:

Guidenet said:

These protective front elements are totally different than a flat clear filter and prove the point that flat filters are more likely to degrade. Otherwise, Nikon would use much cheaper flat glass up front. They no longer do on any of the newer releases.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 said:

--

Click to expand...

Excellent and informative post. I would note that the 200-400mm and AF-S Nikkor 2/200 mm. G VR lens, the protective element is indeed removable by the user to allow for lessening of flare/ghosting in extreme circumstances with no impact on the optical formula.

Click to expand...

Mako, thanks for the kind words. Notice, I said "newer releases." Nikon knows the problem with using flat glass on the nose, and have changed to the meniscus front lens on their lenses as they release the new versions. Digital photography is somewhat new and it took a few years for these improvements to occure. I realize some of the older lenses used flat filters to protect the ED glass, but no more.

Here's the new Nikon 200 f/2 AFS you mentioned. Notice the meniscus front. It's also the same on the 200-400 f/4. It might be removable. I doubt it, but it might, but it's not a flat glass filter.

Same verbiage on both lenses:

"Featuring enhanced dust and moisture-resistance, magnesium die-cast barrel construction and a protective meniscus front lens."

I believe Nikon has dropped all flat glass protection that is not part of the optical formula for protection of ED Glass. I think they all now sport a protective meniscus front lens. Over the years we learn and adjust.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile via Plan

Guidenet said:

Mako2011 said:

Along those lines it then follows that those with the 70-200 f2.8 would be served well to add a protective NC as it's front element is ED glass

Click to expand...

Damn, you scared me for a moment. Anyway, the front element is hardened and coated non-ED glass on the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. The second element in the first group is ED, but it's behind that first one.



Without enlarging the image on the Nikon site, I can see how'd you not see it. Now, don't worry me like that. I don't own that lens, but might some day and was thinking I'd need to purchase the first protective filter I'd have purchased in the last 35 years. Prior to that, I bought and used them myself, but learned better.

Click to expand...

Thank you!!! I missed that additional element...Much thanks I do love learning

I think what it might all boil down to is that for some folks the fear, or concern over damage is so great that using anything, whether realistic or reasonable, is better than this fear. I understand and respect this. When you spend $1000 or $2000 on a lens it's hard to break the use of these filters even if any protection is a pure myth and you know it. Since the degredation can be minimal, never zero, it's easy to talk oneself into their continued use. I understand and respect this as well. Afterall, we've been told for years by salesmen, fellow users and a few professionals to use this as a protection.

I think many make excuses for their use by saying they only use it in certain circumstances like dust storms or blowing sand when it's probably left on all the time. No big deal. Again, as my friend Art says that he's horrified to see rain drops on an $1800 lens he just bought. Some of us older guys can finally barely afford to buy this sort of glass and we a just scared to damage it. We might not even trust taking it out of our padded case. After putting four kids through college and finally being in a position to own better glass, I respect that as well. We remember what it was like to only buy used or only buying the cheaper glass. Even now, I tend to not upgrade as much as I could.

Then there's others like me who when we spend big money on glass, don't want any possible degredaton whether it is noticeable in the field or not. The same issues affect us as the other crowd. We spend thousands of a camera and thousands more on the best glass we can afford. We know the extra we paid just gives a marginal improvement over the cheaper stuff but it's worth it to us, then some salesman or friend suggests we compromise it all with a useless flat filter on the nose. We're shocked at the idea. I understand this because I am in this group. We know you might not see the ghosting and we know you can't see a thin veil of contrast loss, but we don't need to. Our fear is that it's there regardless on whether you can see it when the shot is first taken.

To us, every shot might be important, even when there is blowing sand or breeze at the sea shore. There is absolutely no condition that justifies the use of a thin flat piece of glass. We shudder when we see someone leaving Ritz Camera with a Quantaray UV filter and the same brand Polarizer stacked.

So, I think both groups are motivated by the same type fear and both rationalize their choices. That's ok and it is what makes us human. Because in both cases, it's a not so rational fear governing the choice, I doubt it is really possible to change the minds of the other side, so I think it is best just to make your idea known for the OP or new people, then not insult your photographic friends. We don't have to let things like this keep us from being a close knit group.

When the topic comes up, I promise myself not to say anything but the passion gets the better and I pontificate like normal. For this I apologize if I annoyed or angered any of my good friends here. I did avoid remarking that the UV users wore pink Tutus under their garments though, didn't I?

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile via Plan

Guidenet said:

I did avoid remarking that the UV users wore pink Tutus under their garments though, didn't I?

Click to expand...

I do appreciate that but what other choice do I have when trying to differentiate myself from my yellow tutus wearing friends on the other side of the isle.

Mako2011 said:

Guidenet said:

I did avoid remarking that the UV users wore pink Tutus under their garments though, didn't I?

Click to expand...

I do appreciate that but what other choice do I have when trying to differentiate myself from my yellow tutus wearing friends on the other side of the isle.

Click to expand...

Dammit, how'd you know?
--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile via Plan

Well said. There are clearly two different groups, one with filters one without. Let's respect each other. Every time when someone ask which filter to choose, there is always someone who advise not to use the filter. It is very annoying to me. My friend put a brand new D700 on the concrete side walk while he sets up his tri-pod. I just cannot do that. I wish I can do that too but I just can't. I want to keep the body and the lens as clean as possible.

Thanks to everyone for their views on this issue.

So, for those of us who do put filters on our lenses, would a Nikon NC filter or B+W MRC filter be better?

Someone told me that the B+W filters are easier to clean and more dirt resistant than the Nikon NC filters - is this true? Also, he said that the filter is "clearer", i.e. B+W filter is more "transparent".

Aspiring Shutterbug said:

I'm looking for a filter to protect all my Nikon lenses

Click to expand...

For most by far the best and cheapest way to do this is to buy insurance

Insurance for a $2,000 lens for damage to the lens or it being stolen can cost as little as $20. A good 77mm costs a lot more than that, and provides a lot less protection

Filters can cause extra problems shooting digital - that is why 6 Nikon lenses come with miniscus, not flat glass at the front. Nobody sells miniscus filters for general use - all you can buy is less efficient flat glass type.

Buying a new skylight is in most ways is like installing candle holders to light your home at night

"Skylight" had a place (and still does) shooting slide film in shade under a solid blue sky. With digital AWB deals with that quite well.

If you like warm effects dial in what you prefer on a DSLR - without putting perhaps a third of a stop ND effect skylight 1b on the lens.

Whether to spend your money wisely or not is personal choice. I respect the right of most who use filters, often inappropriate types for digital, to do spend much more than they need to to get a reduced level of protection.
---
Leonard Shepherd

Photography could be easier - if cameras and lenses came with an increase in skill button.

David A. Hamments said:

Personally, I would use neither. A lens hood provides more than ample protection for the front lens element IMHO, and I've found filters degrade image quality, albeit very little.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd strongly advise using a UV Filter (high quality, like the B+W ones). I use them on all my lenses and has saved my from a from situation in which the lens itself would otherwise have been damaged. A few year a ago I did some (non-scientific) tests with and without a UV filter, and while I can have the tendency to pixel peep...I did not see any difference in IQ whatsoever (with both consumer and pro lenses).

Another thing is regarding the protection that the lens hood gives you. Although I agree, I rarely use the lenshood, and a lenshood does not protect dirt from reaching the lensglas. I'd rather replace a UV filter once in a few years then have glass damaged. But then again, I am not exactly carefull about the condition I use lenses in....

As opinions about the influence of (UV) filters seem to differ a lot online, some people do seem to have the idea that it has an influence.. To each their own I guess