Destilled water thats interesting I'll try it the next time it gets dirty. So far I have only had rain drops to deal with. Love the lens by the way. How about you?
Heartyfisher, do you like to use hoods instead of filters at times?
Use of Lens Naked without any UV Filters
(125 posts) (47 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
kanuck said:
Poster, is there any chance that the coating can be eventually wiped off? I have heard that filters need to be cleaned a certain way or else multi-coating can be damaged. I know the HMCs are designed to used in bascially any environment.Geez nau, how in the world did you get spray paint off of there? I have a hard enough time just with basic rain drops coming off! haha
I use Isoproyl alcohol to clean my filters. No streaks left behind.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I also use hoods, but mostly as a protection from sun (BTW: has any one tried to play with bigma hood, or tried any other - longer hoods on this lens, IMHO the hood is too small).
poster - isopropyl is really a good solution for cleaning electronics and glass, as it doesn't leave any marks
Posted 3 years ago # -
How do you guys rate the Nikon NC filters against the others, such as B+W, Hoya, Tiffen, etc?
Posted 3 years ago # -
adamz said:
poster - isopropyl is really a good solution for cleaning electronics and glass, as it doesn't leave any marksIndeed, I always try to find the 99% proof, but I only found those in Virginia, when i was on vacation. Here in NYC i can only find 70% proof, which is still good but the higher the concentration of alcohol the quicker it dries and leaves no smudges.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Johndbr good question. I find that nikon filters are actually difficult to find where I live. Its weird I guess the market is saturated with manufacturers who specialize in filters only. I would imagine B+W would still come out on top.
Where can you buy this isopropyl? Adamz my 70-200mm hood is quite big and nasty looking is the Bigma hood even bigger?
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck said:
Johndbr good question. I find that nikon filters are actually difficult to find where I live. Its weird I guess the market is saturated with manufacturers who specialize in filters only. I would imagine B+W would still come out on top.Where can you buy this isopropyl? Adamz my 70-200mm hood is quite big and nasty looking is the Bigma hood even bigger?
In US it's known as rubbing alcohol. You can find it it most drug and pharmacy stores.
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck - I was getting the isopropyl (IPA CLEANSER) from an electrician repair shop, as for bigma hood, it's smaller than the one from 70-200, so I was wondering how to upgrade it, as I'm using my bigma (95%) at 500mm and don't need wider angle.
johndbr - I would say B+W and some pro Hoya sits on top, than Nikon. can't say anything about tiffen, as I don't have any personal experience, only rumors (rather negative than positive).
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck said:
Destilled water thats interesting I'll try it the next time it gets dirty. So far I have only had rain drops to deal with. Love the lens by the way. How about you?In my view, this is the most awesome lens value for money, when one considers the challenges. A performance this good would be an achievement in a prime 14mm. For the price, you get a 24mm for free, because the price is justified on the 14mm performance alone. I checked my EXIFs: only rarely did I use this lens at a focal length other than 14mm (mostly) or 24mm (occasionally).
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck said:
NSXType-R I am also far too paranoid as I have invested an insane amount of money on glass now for my D700 so I usually use UV filters all the time. My 14-24 keeps me worried sick as I shoot and then the cap goes right back on instantly! I agree with you that with cheaper primes its ok to take the filter off possibly.Poster, are you happy with the new Hoya super HMC filters? I hear they are great in extreme situations like people who shoot dirt bike races. They are also an excellent price. If I have the cash I usually continue to purchase B+W like warprints, adamz and many others on this forum. I'd love to give Lee and Singh Ray a shot also.
Nope, I don't even take the filters off the cheap lenses! I am way too paranoid for that. Good thing about the small primes is that I leave the hood on all the time because it's so tiny as it is, the hood doesn't take up that much more space.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Recent Convert, I agree the 14-24mm is a great deal even at the $1700 it often lists at. If you add up another wide angle lens and then throw in a 20mm and a 24mm prime you come out at about the same price and even then, you are constantly switching lenses. MTF graphs show that the 14-24mm is still sharper anyways!
Getting back to filters though, as we know all to well this lens doesn't take any, and many people have bitched on the internet about this. The lens is simply too wide for any filters. I think the Hoya system works from 18mm-24mm but again does not act as a protector at all for the front of the glass. I'm very happy with the purchase, and I find I am even using the entire focall range which I didn't think I would. I was thinking 14-15 and then 21-24, but I'm using it all and having lots of fun^^
Posted 3 years ago # -
I don't use any protective filters on any of my glass. Of course, it'd be quite the project to fit anything protective on my 14-24mm, haha. But even on my 24-70 (which has been abused the most out of all my glass) and on my 70-200 VR II, I don't even considering using protective filters. And I wouldn't on my 60mm macro anyways, just because for a lens like that its applications usually require the utmost sharpness, and even if a filter is really high quality, I still don't feel comfortable adding another element to the lens.
Have there been situations, especially on the coast during storms and blizzards, where I would have felt better cleaning salt water and ice off of a filter rather than the front of my lens? Sure.
If you're going to be out in the field worrying about stuff getting on your gear, then a filter is probably for you. The most important thing, I think, is that you're able to shoot without added stress. And for me, not having a filter is no source of extra stress. But, for some people, not having a filter might make them think more about taking a shot in a certain situation, and that's not beneficial.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I didn't read the whole thread, but the main issue with filters is their quality.
There is really no point in paying $2000+ for a lens to get that exquisite quality only to ruin it with a cheap filter. Additional glass creates additional flare and reflections. Though I do agree that a filter is useful when there is a high possibility of muck, salt water, etc getting on the front glass.In most cases I think (though I don't own any $2000 lenses) that the combination of a hood and a lens cap should be more than enough.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hey Trenton_Romulox just curious what kind of condition is your 24-70mm in? It has a huge hood I know so that would probably keep some debri off it, but maybe you don't use hoods either? Do you replace lenses often? I've seen a lot of working pros and their gear often looks really banged up. You can usually tell the difference between a working pro and an amateur by the condition of their gear. An amateurs is spotless! Maybe from worrying too much about keeping the gear from getting damaged because of the costs while pros can write it off?
Monty11 good point you have to have good filters or don't bother especially on a $2000 lens.
Posted 3 years ago # -
agree on this monty, that good glass needs good filters (and IMHO the choice is obvious). as for not using filters, well it all depends on the conditions. if You go extreme, than even if You are a pro it cost You less to spend $150 on new filter than $1500 on new lens.and this things get dirty pretty easily, even 24-70 with its great hood.
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck said:
Hey Trenton_Romulox just curious what kind of condition is your 24-70mm in? It has a huge hood I know so that would probably keep some debri off it, but maybe you don't use hoods either? Do you replace lenses often? I've seen a lot of working pros and their gear often looks really banged up. You can usually tell the difference between a working pro and an amateur by the condition of their gear. An amateurs is spotless! Maybe from worrying too much about keeping the gear from getting damaged because of the costs while pros can write it off?Monty11 good point you have to have good filters or don't bother especially on a $2000 lens.
Great point. Pros make money, so they use the gear to whatever extent they need to.
I never buy any gear from pros. You know it's been used and abused.
Rich amateurs are the best gear keepers. They are like free service that takes care of the gear, while the price depreciates.Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes for sure poster thats why I have such a field day living in South Korea because of the "upgrade culture" here. People love buying the next best model so I get all my stuff used and in almost brand new condition. I'd never use ebay again.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Interesting so it looks like quite a few users on this forum use no filters on their lenses then. Basti.rip, the hood for the 70-200 is so big I can see how you might not use a UV filter for the lens.
Posted 3 years ago # -
adamz said:
good glass needs good filters (and IMHO the choice is obvious)Don't be so sure that it is obvious, I've seen plenty of people using a $1000+ lens with a $50 UV-filter for protection. People just don't know about it and the salesmen aren't really explaining the differences. I think that everyone whose serious about photography will reach this point soon enough.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Good example of why to use protective filters on a lens.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=154184291259609Posted 2 years ago # -
Nah! Watch this torture test of the Nikon D70. They use the front lens element to hammer some nails to a board! The 18-70(?) lens didnt shatter like the canon lens did so I'm not worried.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't have any UV filters on any of my lenses. I substitute metal B+W lens hoods for protection. I did somehow damage the coating on my AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D somehow, but that lens doesn't take a filter anyway. The only filters I own are some Nikon circular polarizers and some NDs.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ditto the 14 f/2.8 deal :(
Slight nick in the coating which is want to catch glare, but otherwise never shows.I use multicoated clear filters when walking busy streets after my 50 f/1.4 got a nasty scratch one Christkindlmarkt. I had tried just uncoated ones, but they were flare prone.
I did a series of test shots with and w/o the filters, both my cheap ones and the expensive ones, and was unable to determine which was which in blind testing, but still don't use them except when I fear for my front element.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Reply »
You must log in to post.
