I did the same thing, it cost me $160 for $15k worth of insurance on my gear and it covers everything from dropping it in the ocean to being stolen. It might be overkill but it sure lets me sleep good at night.
Protective UV filter for Nikkor 300 mm 2.8
- Thread starter kiwi86
- Start date
I did the same thing, it cost me $160 for $15k worth of insurance on my gear and it covers everything from dropping it in the ocean to being stolen. It might be overkill but it sure lets me sleep good at night.
Just-Clayton
Senior Member
Hey! If you want a uv, haze, or skylight filter. I bought around 40 filters used a couple years ago. I use a few of the others like a tiffen 812, polarized and a few colors. But, otherwise the rest sit in a box.
It's plainly obvious you don't understand 'the point'. Taking screwdrivers to lenses and filters is meaningless.
The only way to show your 3-4 or filters have TRULY saved your lenses is to recreate the EXACT SAME EVENT with the same lens, same impact, same angle, same velocity..... and show that your lens DID get damaged.
Since you have failed to do so, you have failed to prove a thing.
This is so blatantly obvious, an 8-year-old can understand it: A study of one means nothing.
ohkphoto
Snow White
I don't think anybody is doing a "scientific study". For me it's pretty simple . . . somebody knocked my camera and tripod over. It hit a cement floor, lens first. Cracked the filter . . . no damage to lens or camera. That "proves" it for me.
As far as your comment about 8 year olds . . . have you been to a public school lately?
Believe what you want. Just remember, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Yep... last week. Are you going to tell me that proves something else?
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
I do the same thing. I have a separate rider on my insurance that covers my wife's diamond, my guns and all my camera gear. covers loss, theft and breakage. Worth the dollars it costs.
ohkphoto
Snow White
Of course, I'll believe what I want.
". . . none are so blind as those who refuse to see."
WhiteLight
Senior Member
Have seen countless of threads that discuss this & RAW vs JPEGs and similar where there is no right answer.. cos it's a mater of perspective.
Something works for you & something works for someone else, so how how that say who's right?
I have a UV filter on all my lenses. maybe it really is protecting my lens, maybe it isn't... but it gives me some satisfaction.. like a placebo effect.
But why i feel i need it more is cos the concept of Insurance for cameras, or even households for that matter doesn't exist here.
Talking about the strength of filters vs lens can be absurd cos the quality of the glass on a lens is extremely good.
What cracks or scratches a lens filter may not even have a feather touch effect on the lens.
So even replicating the same on either lens or the filter is meaningless cos to arrive at the same end result, the circumstances may have to different.. simply cos the strength of either is different.
We had a similar discussion about the quality of images with & without a filter, so i tired it & though there was no discernible difference to my eye, there was a very minor difference between the 2, with the one without filters being a little brighter.
Now one can say that the settings may have changed in between the 2 pics ever so slightly, cos of my incapabilities or atmospheric conditions or cos it was raining in Africa when i shot them.
Long story short, if you don't like filters & think they ruin your pics, take it off and go shoot some pics..
If you like filters, put them on and go shoot some pics!
Something works for you & something works for someone else, so how how that say who's right?
I have a UV filter on all my lenses. maybe it really is protecting my lens, maybe it isn't... but it gives me some satisfaction.. like a placebo effect.
But why i feel i need it more is cos the concept of Insurance for cameras, or even households for that matter doesn't exist here.
Talking about the strength of filters vs lens can be absurd cos the quality of the glass on a lens is extremely good.
What cracks or scratches a lens filter may not even have a feather touch effect on the lens.
So even replicating the same on either lens or the filter is meaningless cos to arrive at the same end result, the circumstances may have to different.. simply cos the strength of either is different.
We had a similar discussion about the quality of images with & without a filter, so i tired it & though there was no discernible difference to my eye, there was a very minor difference between the 2, with the one without filters being a little brighter.
Now one can say that the settings may have changed in between the 2 pics ever so slightly, cos of my incapabilities or atmospheric conditions or cos it was raining in Africa when i shot them.
Long story short, if you don't like filters & think they ruin your pics, take it off and go shoot some pics..
If you like filters, put them on and go shoot some pics!
Browncoat
Senior Member
Know what? You're absolutely right. What was I thinking? When you make such obvious sense, it's all become so clear.
Just like purple pancakes at night in the middle of a mud storm.
Thank you again for such wonderfully insightful posts.
ohkphoto
Snow White
Has your question been adequately addressed, kiwi86?
MOST experienced photographers, at least those who care about their equipment, will recommend a UV filter on any lens you use. What it comes down to is personal preference.
Scott Murray
Senior Member
Just a question. Do you wear safety glasses to protect your eyes? If so then any kind of filter is the same, sure it may not protect when it falls from a height on to rock breaking the lens but it will stop it from getting sand blasted down at the beach or any other environmental hazards. I recall going to a Rally where I was getting showered in dust as was my lens, I still have the 80-400 with no scratches, the filters weren't so lucky. To me it depends on the situation and circumstance just as it does to when you wear safety glasses.
I agree that using a hood can provide some protection.
I am also interested to see any quantitative test that you've done to prove that a filter doesn't save a lens (if you have any proof of video or something similar?).
To answer the question from the OP, there are no available screw-in filters that can be placed in front of the 300mm f2.8 lenses just the 300mm f4.
I'm going to brew some coffee and pop some popcorn. This is interesting debate. I expect to see videos of a lens test being dropped (say 2 feet) with and without lens filter (your choice of brand) to prove 480sparky's and browncat's claim.
BTW, don't ask me to do it since I'm too chicken to do this test.
Browncoat
Senior Member
I'm not dropping my lens. That's not what these things are for in the first place. However, I'm certainly willing to put my money where my mouth is.
I will submit a "before" pic of my filter, which is totally new and unscratched. I mentioned a screwdriver before, so that should suffice for this test. I will then drop a large, industrial-sized screwdriver from a height of 5 ft directly onto my lens. I will then submit an "after" pic. Date, time, and source of said proof are all verifiable through EXIF data.
I expect Mr. Angular Velocity would be willing to do the same to his unfiltered lens. Should put an end to this debate once and for all.
So how about it sparky? Gonna put up or shut up?
I will submit a "before" pic of my filter, which is totally new and unscratched. I mentioned a screwdriver before, so that should suffice for this test. I will then drop a large, industrial-sized screwdriver from a height of 5 ft directly onto my lens. I will then submit an "after" pic. Date, time, and source of said proof are all verifiable through EXIF data.
I expect Mr. Angular Velocity would be willing to do the same to his unfiltered lens. Should put an end to this debate once and for all.
So how about it sparky? Gonna put up or shut up?
Just to throw another point in. Whether you use them to protect the lens or not is personal choice. I do and I only give a hoot about my lenses.
My point though is around the UV option. I just use Hoya Pro1 clear filters. They are reasonably priced and protect my lens. I don't believe digital sensors are sensitive to UV like film.
My point though is around the UV option. I just use Hoya Pro1 clear filters. They are reasonably priced and protect my lens. I don't believe digital sensors are sensitive to UV like film.
