Filter for 24-70mm nikon

[Lance B]

Oh, and I should mention that the effect of a good quality clear filter is so small that some of the very, very best lenses money can buy come with what amounts to a clear filter permanently mounted as the first element. Yes, the big white $10,000 and $12,000 L Series primes - lenses like the 400/2.8 and the 600/4 - have a plain glass front element with no optical purpose: it is purely there to protect the (very expensive!) first optical element. If you should be so unfortunate as to damage your front element, the replacement part is worth only a little, where the real front element might cost five or six thousand to replace.

Having argued the case for filters at some length now, honestly compels me to say that, when you get right down to taking pictures, I can't quite bring myself to do something (put a filter on) that I know will reduce my image quality. (Even though I'll never be able to see that difference 'cause it is so small.) This is not logical. So shoot me!

The thing with the filters on those long lenses is that they were designed into the optical path in the first place, ie the lens was designed with those front clear elements in mind. Filters are not really part of the lens design for all other lenses which do not incorporate a protective filter like the lenses you describe.

Having said all that, filters do make very little difference to the image quality and as you say most would not ever see the difference. However, as Murphy's law will dictate just when you are taking that shot of a lifetime photo, a filter may cause an issue.

At the end of the day, it is up to the individual what they want to do, filter or no filter and there are pros and cons for either stance. I do not use protective filters and the only filters I use are a polariser or ND grads.

[jim]

(I would have preferred to keep this reply short) but to answer Tony's(Tannin) last comment about this point that some lenses having a clear protective filter(meniscus) at the very front of the lens .. this is true, and some lenses HAVE to have a filter in place or they simply can't focus properly too!

Arthur surely the only reason Canon's long lenses have a clear glass filter built in on the front is to protect the front element. Nothing to do with focussing.

[I @ M]

First, the image degradation introduced by a good quality clear filter is very, very small. You've completely ignored the size of the IQ reduction, and that's a very relevant factor here. What you are saying is like saying that a second wing mirror will degrade your fuel economy - yes, it's absolutely true, technically, but most people would never be able to tell the difference. Under nearly all circumstances, the difference is too small to worry about - and where we are looking straight into the sun for some reason, one can always take the filter off for that shot.

No, I have not ignored the size of the IQ reduction introduced by fitting clear filters to a 24-70 Nikkor which is the lens that the thread is all about.
I have very deliberately confined my comments to that lens and the included a specific camera body as well seeing as AutumnCurl desires to own that body.
If you are so confident that the Nikkor 24-70 image quality is only very slightly affected by the fitting of a filter then please show us by how much it is affected. Percentages are fine seeing as you chose to use them to start with but images would be better. My views are based upon viewing multiple examples of with and without filter images with that lens encompassing the dirt cheap to the ultra expensive filters and they show marked IQ decay under many situations.

Secondly, what photographer would be so ultra-careful about their gear as to put a clear filter on, despite knowing that it costs a fair bit and will (however insignificantly) lower their picture quality but so sloppy about their gear as to clean a sand-blown lens/filter with a tee-shirt? That's just not a realistic scenario.

I don't consider it unrealistic at all after I have seen that same procedure done by a photographer who will remain nameless and who should have known better but did just that and then blamed clear filters for bad images.

and where we are looking straight into the sun for some reason, one can always take the filter off for that shot.

Yes, of course that can be, and in the case of this lens, should be done. But why is the filter on the lens in the first place then? Going by AutumnCurls need for the filter to provide protection at the same time as cutting haze then we have just negated the protection factor as well.

And third, it really doesn't make any sense to list three (and only three) lens cleaning solutions,

I feel that listing the best way to do it is a very relevant point.
I feel that there are several good ways of doing it but as far as I am concerned if we are chasing the best possible IQ from camera and lens then we need to do everything the best way. If the OP is faced with constant or steady wind blown sand or salt then on the site cleaning is going to be very repetitive and more likely than not going to result in less than optimal images.

You need to get out of the studio a bit! People who work outdoors in all sorts of conditions soon learn a range of cleaning techniques:

Trust me, I do get outdoors far more than you might imagine. Perhaps you should venture into a studio one day ----


I still reckon that if AutumnCurl wants to utilise her top of the range gear to the best of its ability ( isn't that what we all want to do? ) then fitting clear filters to that lens is not the right choice. After all it would be very easy to pay less money for gear by buying cheaper Nikon products or other brands to obtain lesser quality results rather than hindering the good gear with clear filters that are known to not produce optimal results.

No, I am not going to respond about other lenses needing or having protective elements built in as standard because they simply are not part of the original post where advice was asked for about one particular lens.

[TOM]

Image degradation by using a filter is irrelevant, apart from the additional possibility of flare. If someone was that #### about image quality, I doubt they'd be using a zoom lens in the first place. I don't use them, but plenty do. Damage to the front element rarely has an affect on image quality, it's the rear element you need to worry about.

[Lance B]

Arthur surely the only reason Canon's long lenses have a clear glass filter built in on the front is to protect the front element. Nothing to do with focussing.

Not the front element, but the Nikon has a clear drop in filter is all their long lenses which is required for normal functionality of focus, I do believe. I think that the Canon lenses are the same. This drop in filter can be changed for a polariser or ND filters etc. This is different from the front filter glass which is basically a lens protector as suggested. However, as I stated in another post of mine, this front element (as is the drop in filter) are an intrinsic part of the whole lens system and are designed to be part of the optical path, which is different from an aftermarket screw on filter which was not designed as part of the lens.

[jim]

That's all true Lance, but they wouldn't add a clear filter to the front of the lens for that reason would they?

[Lance B]

Image degradation by using a filter is irrelevant, apart from the additional possibility of flare. If someone was that #### about image quality, I doubt they'd be using a zoom lens in the first place. I don't use them, but plenty do. Damage to the front element rarely has an affect on image quality, it's the rear element you need to worry about.

All very well, but if all you have is a zoom, which is already a compromise in most cases, then why possibly degrade it further by putting a filter in front? Not everyone can afford a prime and a multitude of them to cover the range of a zoom and if you had a multitude of primes covering the range then imagine the cost of all those front filters!

The whole debate is becoming a little bit over the top. The fact is, a filter will have some impact and it is up to the individual whether they use one or not. Those that are advocating not using a filter are just pointing out that there may be some detrimental effects of using a filter and the cost of putting one on a lens may be incongruent with the cost of a normal zoom. Some of these filters can cost a 1/4 to 1/3rd of the price of a zoom and as such seem an extravagance. If you have a good quality zoom, like the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 being discussed, then you would want to put the best you can on it and a top quality 77mm UV filter can be $70. If it's only one lens, then it may not be an issue, but if you have a few lenses then the extra cost of UV filters would end up outweighing the benefit of any very unlikely front element damage. If you have 5 lenses, then that could be near $300+ worth of filters and a replacement front element may not cost much more than that in the very unlikely event that you damage it. In some instances, the total filter outlay for your complete lens system may be more than the cost of a complete new lens! Then if you want a polariser, you have to add that on the cost as well. And, these lenses are a lot tougher than most people think as the coatings they put on them these days is very robust.

Shop owners love filters as they make more profit on those than they do on some of the lenses they sell. I think it amusing that people haggle about the cost of a lens and camera combo trying to knock it down by $50 and then gladly paying for a filter which costs more than what they saved!

I have no issue with people using filters as they probably really don't make any difference to most users, but at least be informed with your purchase and that is all I am trying to do here.

[TOM]

I have no issue with people using filters as they probably really don't make any difference to most users, but at least be informed with your purchase and that is all I am trying to do here.

Sounds fair to me.

[ponda51]

thanks for the conversations about filters - had normally just got one - now asking myself why I have one!! Even if I am not a professional!

[BLWNHR]

(Even though I'll never be able to see that difference 'cause it is so small.) This is not logical. So shoot me!

I agree with everything you've posted and also never run clear filters. The last straw for me was after I had a stack of rally photos almost ruined by light reflecting between the front element and the UV filter I was running. It was an expensive filter and had all the right coatings, but it still couldn't handle bright spot lights right at the lens.

I pretty much always have a CPL on my lenses these days anyhow so any other filter for "protection" would be redundant.

My advice to people who want to run filters for "protection" is to use that money for insurance on the gear. This is far more beneficial than a clear filter.

[jim]

My advice to people who want to run filters for "protection" is to use that money for insurance on the gear. This is far more beneficial than a clear filter.

What a very sensible idea.

[Lance B]

My advice to people who want to run filters for "protection" is to use that money for insurance on the gear. This is far more beneficial than a clear filter.

That is sort of what I said in my post, but in a long winded way:

"Some of these filters can cost a 1/4 to 1/3rd of the price of a zoom and as such seem an extravagance. If you have a good quality zoom, like the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 being discussed, then you would want to put the best you can on it and a top quality 77mm UV filter can be $70. If it's only one lens, then it may not be an issue, but if you have a few lenses then the extra cost of UV filters would end up outweighing the benefit of any very unlikely front element damage. If you have 5 lenses, then that could be near $300+ worth of filters and a replacement front element may not cost much more than that in the very unlikely event that you damage it. In some instances, the total filter outlay for your complete lens system may be more than the cost of a complete new lens! Then if you want a polariser, you have to add that on the cost as well. And, these lenses are a lot tougher than most people think as the coatings they put on them these days is very robust."