Filter for a 70-200 2.8 AFS VR

Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
208
I am ready to get the 70-200 2.8 AFS VR forum :D I've also set my mind on getting the 1.7 TC. But I am still hesitating: this is an expensive lens. Should I ignore Thom Hogan's advice and buy a filter for the sake of protecting the front element, and if I do, which one:

- a clear filter
- a hot filter (I think only Tiffen makes those, to block IR)
- just use the Hoya pro UV filter I have, which I barely use

What do you girls and guys do ? What is your recommandation ? :?:

Thank you to those who've posted so many pics taken with that lens (yes, really :wink: ) !

Thierry 8)
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
994
Location
Alabama
Thierry,

I got an inexpensive UV filter for mine (don't remember the brand right now). I agree with Thom, that it is better to protect than to repair.... 8)

Frank
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
208
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Thank you, Iliah and Frank, for your answers.

The BW 486 seems the logical choice to "preserve" visible light gamut.

Thierry
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
2,761
Location
nowhere
I was shooting dark purple forget-me-not flowers in dusk with D2x. Guess what... They turned bright blue without hot mirror.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
2,761
Location
nowhere
I know, but IR is the issue only with purple on flowers, wool, and other natural dyes - in incandescent light it is more often.

I saw a lot of images where the issue was white balance, not IR sensitivity. Easy to mix up.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
3,624
Location
Vienna, AUSTRIA
I don't use filters on any of my lenses (even the ones with short lens hoods). Maybe that's careless, but I don't need to buy the best lenses when I then diminish the quality (how little it may be) by putting some additional glass in front of it.
In case of the 70-200, the lens hood must be protection enough, unless there are some really intimidating environmental conditions (e.g. very windy in a sandy environment). I always carry one or two filters with me to be prepared for such rare cases.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
2,761
Location
nowhere
Consider this - how much resolution you loose on "field cleaning" of a lens?

The other thing to consider is that good UF filters actually can improve quality, increasing contrast and taking off some fog.

All that not to say that hot mirror filter is really useful for Nikon digital cameras. To see it, just try shooting police uniform in sunny day, or your IR remote.

Schneider Optics (as you know, having their cine lens :) )is manufacturing some of the most fine lenses in the world, and their top filters do justice toi the lenses.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
3,624
Location
Vienna, AUSTRIA
Iliah said:
Consider this - how much resolution you loose on "field cleaning" of a lens?

The other thing to consider is that good UF filters actually can improve quality, increasing contrast and taking off some fog.

All that not to say that hot mirror filter is really useful for Nikon digital cameras. To see it, just try shooting police uniform in sunny day, or your IR remote.

Schneider Optics (as you know, having their cine lens :) )is manufacturing some of the most fine lenses in the world, and their top filters do justice toi the lenses.
Iliah, I stand corrected! It also seems to be a matter of personal attitude. Maybe I have been just desperately seeking an excuse for not spending the additional money really good filters cost (which actually stands in contrast to my easiness in shelling out big money for good glass).

BTW - nice to see you here after this ridiculous banning from DPR.
cheers
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
4,434
Location
CT USA
Iliah,
Do you think that B+W 486 would be any benefit out on the water? Not much of an IR problem out there, but UV bounces everywhere. Any opinions on the 486 with film? Thanks!
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
2,761
Location
nowhere
I use 486 with film balanced for daylight, as I iusually want to cut UV down. IMHO IR for film is not that of a problem.

Water reflects IR from leaves and from Sun.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
208
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
I have the 486 on order 8) .

Thank you to all for your input.

I could only find B&H listing this filter on its web site. 2filters.com and another stores that specialize on filters like 2filters.com, other major photography equipment stores like Adorama, ... do not list this item on their web site. With B&H it is a special order.

I'll order the 70-200 2.8 afs vr in the next few days ... got to buy a lens to fit my new filter now :lol: !

Thierry
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
172
Location
North Dakota
i agree also...i buy a $1500+ lense...i'm not going to put a $100 or so glass on top...doesn't make sense to me...

but i wonder has anyone done test to see if these filters do reduce the quality of the lenses or not?

my 2cents
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
21
Location
Payson, Arizona
Well, I have always been of the school that why complicate possible reflections and possible ghosting by adding two more reflective surfaces - unless they serve some photographic purpose. The lens was carefully engineered to perform at its optical best without any filters. Will I use a filter just to protect the lens? Nope. I have insurance for that.

This question has been around for EVER.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
2,761
Location
nowhere
IR/UV filters serve for purpose rather different from protecting lenses :)

Quoting Handbook:

"B+W Digital UV-/IR-Blocking Filter 486 DIGITAL-PRO SLIM

This B+W Interference Filter has a completely colorless glass carrier coated with a number of extremely thin, partially reflecting layers with precisely computed thicknesses, similar to MC coating.

The B+W Filter 486 does not block by means of absorption, but by interference of the unwanted UV- and IR radiation that is repeatedly reflected between these layers, affecting the wavelengths on both sides of the visible spectrum with a steep cut-off. It is used mainly on digital- and video cameras with CCD sensors without an integrated IR protection filter, because the IR sensitivity of the CCD sensor would otherwise cause color changes and unsharpness. That unsharpness results from the chromatic aberration of the lenses that are only corrected for visible light. In the visible range, the transmission curve is very high and straight. This filter is completely clear and it requires no increase in exposure."
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom