Nikon Arcrest protection filters update



A quick update on the new Nikon Arcrest “high-performance” protection filters that were announced in June:

The Nikon Arcrest filters are made with real 2mm thick glass. Five different filter sizes were introduced:

  • Arcrest protection filter 67 mm
  • Arcrest protection filter 72 mm
  • Arcrest protection filter 77 mm
  • Arcrest protection filter 82 mm
  • Arcrest protection filter 95 mm

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Peter

    21 days to go and all news is about a filter?

    • paulski

      Just wanted to be sure you had something to whine about.

      • Peter

        I am not whining just worried…

        • Bob Thane

          Nikon’s going to release the D815 – two sd slots, 37 megapixels, 5 fps, base ISO of 60 – it’s going to be awesome.

          • TwoStrayCats

            That’s the D811 with two SD slots. 1 CF and 1 SD is the D815 – to be released a year from now.

            • You guys, don’t joke with that names.

              I just bought a Panasonic TZ100, which is the same than TZ101, wich is the same than SZ100, which is the same than SZ110. Well, in fact mine is the TZ110.

              Which is the same, of course.

              Please, respect my headache…

          • T.I.M

            37 megapixels, you’re talking about the 3.2″ back screen right ?

          • Francesc Genové

            For the rest of us the Nikon 820 with 42.4 megapixels, 7 to 8fps thanks to the dual XQD (CFexpress 1.0 up to 1GB/s) and SD UHS-II slots, and base ISO 50 – it’s going to be so much better!

            Sorry for those who have to stick with the D815. Nice camera though.

          • Amir

            These are specifications of D810s!

    • T.I.M

      maybe Peter is filtering the information…

      • Amir

        Or exaggerating too much!

        • What are you talking about?

  • Art

    I’m glad they are finally offering the high performance version. It’s something I’ve been dying for for years. Now my 800E will be able to go twice as fast.

  • Aldo

    I’ll just buy a cheap filter when I sell my expensive lenses and say : been there since day one…

  • Patrick

    Does Nikon manufacture these filters? What about Nikon’s other filters? Are they produced by Nikon also?

    • Spy Black

      Considering Nikon male their own glass, I can’t see them farming out filter production.

    • EarlFargis

      After reading the linked review, I’m convinced they are manufactured by Nikon. They use an unique coating process. Cropped comparisons show clear improvements in performance over conventional filters.

      If the review can be believed, these filters essentially take away any argument protective filters degrade image quality.

      Of course, there remains the argument do protective filters provide any real lens protection?

      The one example I saw for sale (didn’t catch the size) looks to be around $99 US converted from yen. I’ll be interested in the pricing here. I might bite.

      • North Polar

        Protective filters have saved my bacon a few times. But generally if I know I’m going into a situation that might need them, I make sure to have them attached early.

        Example was a spot that I knew was going to have a strong wind and a lot of blown sand. Filter got scratched pretty good and tossed when I got home, but not a dent on the lens itself.

        Personally I’m hoping these come to the US because I like the hydrophobic coating. Could be useful at times.

      • ZoetMB

        I believe a protective filter saved me right after I bought the 70-200. I had barely yet used the lens and was shooting a wedding in a tent. I had the camera around my neck. Some kid ran past, brushing into me. I swung around and the front of the lens hit the corner of a table. The filter broke, but I believe it absorbed the impact and saved the lens from any damage.

  • whisky

    Nikon predicts that they’ll recover to profitability next fiscal year, but with lower sales

    ” …shift to new products that will have higher profit margins …”

    good luck.

    • Eric Calabros

      I post off topic comments a lot here, but this one beats all my records in irrelevancy

      • whisky

        try not to confuse complementary with off-topic. JMO.

  • J.Coi

    “KeyMission”
    “SnapBridge”
    “Arcrest”

    Nikon still have no brand identity.

    • “Nikon” is the brand identity.

      • J.Coi

        “Nikon” is brand name, not brand identity.

        • harvey

          actually, its the identity. A few years ago, a world-wide survey was done over brand name recognition. While not as potent as Apple and McDonalds, Nikon was up there in the top 10 for recognition of brands.

          • J.Coi

            No, brand name recognition is not same as brand identity.

            • harvey

              In this particular survey, the question was whether the names were brands not that they were recognized. Nikon was considered to be a photographic brand over Canon.

            • Andrew

              Nikon definitely has brand identity. Nikon is known for producing top quality and precision photographic products in particular cameras, lenses, and binoculars. Its cameras are the standard equipment used by Astronauts in their space missions. Nikon has historically been known as the leader in weather sealing their cameras for extreme environments.

              Professional photographers use Nikon cameras at weddings, sports, and other events which helps their brand identity. And these cameras are sometimes very big like the D4 which gives them an awesome and professional presence.

              Nikon and Canon are known for dominating the DSLR camera market. When people make buying decision, they think of the top brands in the target market. Nikon’s name is synonymous with top class cameras. Canon is cameras, video cams, and printers. Sony is TVs, Gaming Consoles (PlayStation), Walkman, Headphones, Movies, Music, etc.

            • Amir

              Partially true,in regards to optics as a general term,it is identity,in regards to various made products,it is brand.I believe I have been taught this in business class/workshop many years ago.

      • Wayne No Offense

        Did these have brand name or brand identity? New Coke, Wang Computers, and Tylenol (1982 Chicago). I love my Nikon gear and Happy 4th of July to my Nikon Rumors Family!!!

    • MB

      Important brand identity components are name, logo, typeface etc …
      If you think it is something much more than this you are obviously a victim of some branding company advertising messages …

      • T.I.M

        You’re back !
        :o)

      • J.Coi

        Do not call me victim, is not polite. You google “brand identity” today for first time, I congratulate you for learning.

        • MB

          If you feel that way I am sorry, but you must admit that You haven’t been very polite yourself now didn’t you?

        • Eric Calabros

          I did, for the first time, and no content found explaining your mysterious definition of brand identity.

      • SK8

        That’s a very narrow, literal view from the perspective of a graphic designer, working to conform to guidelines.

        • MB

          If it isn’t too much trouble please elaborate …

          • SK8

            Imho it’s whether the referenced products/sub brands (like Arcrest) contribute, confuse or detract from the overall identity (Nikon). To date, they haven’t contributed and in particular, KeyMission and SnapBridge have detracted.

            • ZoetMB

              There’s a difference between the name of a product and the name of a company. Does iMac or MacBook Pro or iPad confuse or detract the identity of Apple?

              So I don’t have a problem with the separate branding of KeyMission or SnapBridge. (The products themselves and the choice of words for those brands are another matter).

              But I do wonder why Nikon deemed it necessary to create separate product branding for filters. Nikon has sold filters in the past and they didn’t give them a separate name. Unless these are actually manufactured by a company named Arcrest and the branding was part of the deal. Or, possibly Nikon thinks they want to sell these to non-Nikon lens users and they were afraid those users would believe that these filters would only work with Nikon lenses.

    • A. F.O.

      Keymission 170 has 4.5 in amazon U.K.: one guy gave it 5 another gave it 4 stars…. 🙂
      but what I noted is this:
      “Date first available at Amazon.co.uk: 15 Jun. 2017”
      Is this a typo?!…. only in June this year!?…

  • At least they sell them as “protection filters”. Makes me think someday we’ll stop seeing those UV, Haze, and whatever more used “just for protection”

  • T.I.M

    **** 4th JULY FIREWORKS TIPS ****
    Oops, I meant to post that one few days ago but I forgot!

    -use a tripod.
    -manual focusing set to infinity.
    -manual exposure mode, you set the aperture and speed.
    -ISO 100-200
    -exposure time 0.5 to 8 seconds (depending on the fireworks activity)
    -use a remote cable or wireless shutter to avoid blur.
    -exposure aperture f/8-f/11 (depending on the fire works intensity)
    -WHITE BALANCE: manual daylight mode (but some fireworks use 3200k white balance, do a test)
    -have fun!

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b47dc90ae9a081137d94f40619bfde4448f7604728c092bc7e5e23b8b3f31691.jpg

    • A. F.O.

      Thanks!
      What nikkor DX lenses do you recomend me?… the 14 mm f/1.8? The 10-20 mm f/2.8? The 16-80 mm f/2.8? The 20 mmm f/1.4?….
      Oops….
      (Yes, I know that even the kit lens is alright ….for fireworks….but NOT to the 100th anniversary …)
      🙂

      • T.I.M

        I only use FX for that kind of work, usually my 24mm PC-E or the 35mm f/1.4
        I guess any good wide prime DX will work fine.

        • A. F.O.

          ok
          I have the 35 mm f/1.8 DX prime;
          like Tom H. says: DX primes buz buz buz….
          🙂

  • peter w

    is this the same concept as the Nikon fluorine coated frontlenses and B&W and Hoya anti dust and waterstain protective filters?

    • OMartin

      I’ve got the B+W Nano filters for my Fuji lenses, great stuff! Surprised if they don’t use similar technology when they make a special protective series like this

  • disqus_ErOzKSxw9P

    Yes they were released in the UK only in June

  • TouchmymonkeyUK

    Stupid price for these.

  • What about the financial news Nikon has posted recently here?
    http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/index.htm#y2017

    • Brent Rawlings

      Ask Thom Hogan when he returns from his month long vacation.

    • Am I missing something – we covered that already here?

    • ZoetMB

      Already covered here when they were released. We’re waiting for the fiscal 2018 1st quarter results (ending June 30th) which won’t be released until sometime in August. Personally, I’m not expecting any improvement — quite the opposite.

      Nikon Imaging was down 26.4% in revenue and 39.4% in earnings compared to the previous fiscal. They sold 3.1 million DSLR’s, 3.19 million compacts and 4.62 million lenses, down from 4.04 million DSLR’s, 6.23 million compacts and 5.9 million lenses the previous fiscal. Some of that can be blamed on the state of the photography business except that Nikon also lost share, which means they’re doing worse than their competitors. DSLR share dropped from 31% to 26.4%, lens share dropped from 27.8% to 24.1% and compact share dropped from 30% to 25.4%. In 2008, Nikon had a 40.1% share of the DSLR business.

      The rest of the company is generally doing worse than the Imaging division. Nikon’s not going out of business, but they are in trouble, IMO and aside from shuffling around the deck chairs, they don’t seem to be doing much about it. I’ve been an exec at three major corporations and been a consultant to others. If I turned in a performance like Nikon imaging, I would have long ago been fired.

      • Thank you for your very good and valuable input! I am a D600 owner with three Nikkor lenses and i want to continue to buy Nikon products. I have started at the end of 2013 with photography and i prefer to have my tools instead of switching systems the whole time (nor do i have the money to invest in multiple systems of different brands).

  • Captain Megaton

    Over 2x the price of the regular Nikon NC filters, but comparable with high end B+W, similar. Seems to be an arms race going on to see who can make the most expensive lens protector.

    No comment on “real glass” but the transmission spectrum is indeed impressive. Some serious AR coatings there, and the glass is of exceptional flatness.

    http://www.nikon-image.com/products/accessory/common2/pdf/arcrest_20170531.pdf

    • North Polar

      The nice thing that they have (that I don’t think B&W does) is a hydrophobic coating. That could be really awesome if you are shooting in crappy weather, like storms, super high humidity, etc, as you won’t have to constantly be cleaning your lens.

      • Captain Megaton

        If all you want is the hydrophobic coating there are much cheaper alternatives.

        http://www.kenkoglobal.com/photo/filters/protector/realpro_protector.html

        • North Polar

          It was just an example of a benefit the FL coating provides.

      • dabug91

        If I’m not mistaken, B+W’s XS-Pro Nano filters have the hydrophobic coating. I use them on all my lenses since they don’t have any noticeable degradation to image quality. And they are pretty cheap on Amazon, even when sold by Amazon rather than third-party.

        • North Polar

          Might have to buy one to test out. B&H just says ‘improved beading’ and not hydrophobic, but could be worth a test.

  • Nikita

    I’m sure these will be reasonably priced.

    • North Polar

      Starts around $88 for the 67mm and up to $225 for the 95mm, so not horrible with all things considered. Granted that is JP prices, so could be higher or lower elsewhere when they hit the US/Europe market.

      • Nikita

        An entire 50 1.8 AF lens with 7 elements, an aperture and AF is only about $200. How can a flat piece of glass be worth $88 to $225? I don’t care what it’s coated with, that’s outrageous markup.

        • North Polar

          Have you priced other high end filters? That’s honestly kind of par for UV filters. It’s only $20 more than a B+W UV clear filter which doesn’t have the FL coating or anything.

          And the $1400 200-500mm f/f.6 uses a 95mm filter. Yeah, I’m going to protect the nearly 4″ front element of a lens that expensive if there are things that can damage it. $200 is still a lot less than what Nikon would charge to repair it.

          Kinda the whole point for stuff like this. IF you need it, the cost is acceptable because it is still cheaper than buying a new (pick whatever pro level lens you want)

          • Nikita

            You’re justifying bend-over pricing. You may feel the need for an expensive piece of flat glass, but I don’t like the feeling that they’re screwing me.

            I like and can afford a new Porsche, but the wholesale prices are so massively marked up that I just cannot abide being taken like that.

            • North Polar

              Personal opinion doesn’t matter though. It’s product cost + markup vs what the market will support.

              If it performs as advertised, it’ll be a solid seller. Welcome to capitalism 101. If you like it and agree with the price, you buy it. If not, you don’t.

              Personally, my guess is that the coating is a sol-gel process with fluorinated silica nanoparticles in the 114nm range. Given the process, extreme refinement of the materials, and the given quality of output, the cost is warranted. It is not a cheap process to do.

              That said, it could also be a FTO coating in their lithography division, but that’s really expensive and a bastard to do. Not sure if they (researchers or production guys) have managed to get an optically clear FTO coating though.

  • Hendrik

    when I use a lens in the rain, can a filter like this prevent me from raindrops staying on the surface?
    Last time i shoot in the rain i was not able to dry the lens because of wet gloves and wet everything…

    • It seems that this filters have the fluorine coat that repels water and other fluids, so it might be worthy in the situation you described, Take a look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJkDq-bxUw

    • Captain Megaton

      The coating is supposed to make the water bead up and run cleanly off the glass, yes.

      • Hendrik

        Thanks, so I have to find out if the B&W MRC Nano is as good as the Arcrest. The B&W is much cheaper, but parhaps is not so strong protective…

  • I don’t use filter when I am indoors/studio. But living here in Middle East, with all that fine grains of sand in the air, I guess it’s a must. I prefer Sigma’s WR Ceramic than this one.

  • Mac

    Do many people actually use protective filters? Depending on how a camera lands when dropped, a lens hood would offer some protection, assuming it has a lens hood to begin with.

    • North Polar

      Mostly they are for protection against sudden whacks to the front element or crap blowing in the wind. Blowing sand will etch lenses like crazy, for example.

      Since they bead water really well (the fluorine coating is hydrophobic) they should work well in crappy weather too.

      • Mac

        Thanks for the reply. I never thought of the blowing sand scenario. Makes sense it would act like a sandblaster to lenses.

        • North Polar

          Yup. I’ve had a few filters damaged by it, and have two friends that had lenses/cameras destroyed by blowing sand when in the ME.

          I’m poor, so $150 to protect a $2000 lens is perfectly fine by me. Probably should look into camera insurance at some point though. Renter’s insurance only covers so far and all.

          • Mac

            And having another piece of clear glass over the lens doesn’t degrade image quality? Thanks for your input.

            • North Polar

              Damage to the front elements will do a lot more to the image quality than a screw in filter so long as it is a good one. Personally, I don’t use filters unless I’m in a situation that warrants it, like blowing sand, using a lens that doesn’t have good sealing at the front (Nikon 50mm f/1.8g has the element move in and out) where water could get into it easily, etc.

              It depends on the quality of the filter, really. Any filter will degrade image quality to some degree. The higher level/cost/performance filters make the loss more and more so. It’s why the Nikon ones grabbed my attention, as they claim to have the lowest loss of any similar filter.

              Granted, I’ll wait for independent verification, but it could be a big winner.

            • Mac

              Thank you!

  • Back to top