Protecting Your GLASS? | SHOULD YOU USE FILTERS FOR YOUR LENSES? | FIRST LOOK - Arcrest | Matt Irwin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 тра 2023
- #filters #lenses #nikon
This is a first look video at some filters I did not even know existed. I share my journey with filters and why I think they are a good idea for my particular use case. There is no testing in this video, that will follow after real world testing.
I have often wondered the best way to protect my investment in high end glass. Is this the solution? ARCREST by Nikon, seems like a great place to start. :)
Check out my social media
INSTAGRAM / mattirwinphotography
FACEBOOK / mattirwinphotography
WEBSITE www.mattirwin.com
TWITTER / mattirwinphotog
This is a first look video at some filters I did not even know existed. I share my journey with filters and why I think they are a good idea for my particular use case. There is no testing in this video, that will follow after real world testing of a few months or more.
Personally i have never had an issue with Hoya filters . Thanks for sharing Matt.
And the debate rages on.
This is what I know -- 1) the reason filters are so much less expensive than lenses is that there is almost zero R&D, and far fewer parts (and hence, construction expenses) to any filter than any lens. 2) This doesn't mean they degrade quality. Any degradation a **good** filter causes would be so minimal that only a diehard pixel-peeper would be able to see it. ("Good" defined as from a major manufacturer). 3) I dropped a lens once -- hood straight into concrete. The hood shattered, and the UV filter shattered, but the front element of the lens was completely unharmed. I removed the remains of the old UV, and replaced it with a new one. My son now uses that lens, and it's still just as sharp as ever.
In short, if there's a filter that fits my lens, I'll use it (I prefer Nikon's clear (NC) filters). The Arcrest filters are not (yet) available in the US, but their regular filters are very good.
Thanks for another excellent video, Matt.
in the field cleaning a protective filter is much better than cleaning the front element.
A couple of times stones have destroyed my UV filter - much better than damage to my lens.
The only place I dont use them is in the studio.
If I use a filter then I always use a hood to cut the extra flare. 🦘
With film and F mount Nikon glass, I needed to carefully decide on UV or blue cut-off (the wavelength where the filtering starts) because of tint differences between lenses, in the first place. The Z mount "S" lenses took that out of the equation - they are very consistent at that. With the F mount glass, the filter helped keep the front element clean and dry. The Z mount "S" lenses have coatings that do this for me - with anti-dirt, anti-grease/oil, anti-water, anti-fingerprint coatings, and being weatherproof.
So then the filter is only there for protection against damage from mechanical events. This function, however, is easily provided by the lens hood. But that makes the camera more conspicuous, so I prefer to only put the lens hood on when I really, really need it.
And so the conclusion is, I have protection filters on my Z mount "S" lenses.
In absence of Nikon Arcrest, I bought into Hoya Fusion. Yes, I would have considered the Nikon ones. Definitely.
Thanks for the video! What you consider an Arcrest better than an UV filter? I only have UV filters on my lenses (exept ND and Pole if necessary).
Hello Matt, I had never heard of those filters. I will check them out.
I have B+W nano uv’s for all my lenses - but only for use in adverse conditions: rain, snow, dust or sand. That’s it. This is the only (yes only) protection they offer. Thinner glass in front of thicker front element glass often does more harm than good in impact scenarios.
If I’m using a lens, the lens hood is on 100% of the time. Transport / storage, lens cap is on.
When did I adopt this approach? After seeing Steve Perry’s impact test video he did years ago, comparing impact damage with and without uv filters. And more recently, Jan Wegener’s image quality tests on telephoto lenses, comparing no filter / cheap uv / and expensive uv. Pretty surprising results.
All that said - everyone’s use case and preference is valid - this is just mine 🙂
On a related note, I've seen some guys on UA-cam do testing of lenses by slowly adding dirt and scratches to the front element and looking at how much you have to do before you can actually see a result. It takes a LOT to start showing up. I suspect it wouldn't be as immune under tougher lighting conditions, like bright side-lighting for instance, and probably some other problems. Still, it's amazing to see how much it takes. Another amazing thing is how much visible dirt can be rattling around INSIDE a lens and not show up. Unless dirt actually gets on the sensor surface and is therefore in perfect focus, it's kinda invisible further out in the light path. I wouldn't want any of this, and it might show up under intense scrutiny, but it's still amazing.
I can understand what your saying about a scratched lens being almost impossible to detect, so if that is the case surely no one would detect the difference a quality filter could make too an image.
@@lukes5533 I think those scratch and dirt studies didn’t get to the extreme pixel-peeping level with inspection of subtle effects that would only show up in huge prints. Matt looks at tiny chromatic aberrations and lens flare from direct sunlight and other really picky details. Also there could be problems from side lighting and other odd situations. It’s worth investigating for people paying big money for the absolute best performance. On the other hand, if your photos are for web use or standard size prints, or your style is more about art than absolute technical performance, then it’s amazing what you can get away with.
@@lukes5533 where filters tend to cause problems is less about scratched and dirt and more about the issue of having parallel surfaces. Light passes through that first surface and can get trapped between parallel surfaces like the "infinity mirror" illusions that were a popular decoration in the 70's. This ends up reducing the overall light transmission to the lens, and it can cause flare condition that reduces overall contrast in a way that a scratch or a few dust specs would never show up.
Close inspection and careful cleaning can't remove this issue any more than wiping your eyes will make your vision better if you have cataracts. Filter choice matters, and I insist on multicoated filters unless I have a specific reason. That coating helps improve light transmittance and reduces the issues of internal reflection. The best filters have coating systems that can exceed the effect of coatings on even high end lenses. So for all practical purposes they become invisible.
I actually badly scratched my Z24-70 f2.8 while climbing an embankment in the bush and having my camera swing into my tripod, but the Hoya saved it. I don't know if I can stomach changing the ones I have though, especially as my z100-400 filter cost a LOT. I'd be interested to hear the differences between high-end Hoya and the Nikon versions, if you have two that fit the same lens and you can test them.
I was surprised when I was researching for a filter for my 50mm 1.2S. I've always used B+W filters but I thought I'd give it a try. I really like the build quality.
I used filters way more in film days because we couldn't change the white balance so needed 81A warming filters. And I used a graduated neutral density filter to darken the sky in landscapes. With mirrorless I only use a polarizing filter when necessary. I admit a filter has saved my lens when I dropped it a couple of times, but it was a polarizing filter both times. My 52mm polarizing filter is still so dinged I can barely keep a lens cap on it. I have also broken a couple of lens hoods.
My lens protection is the lenshood. In 25 years professional photography I only broke one Frontelement of a 70-200. And it was because a ball hit me while a soccer game. The only filters I use are Pol‘s or ND‘s. If it comes to a worst case, there is an insurance. But I understand the thinking behind the protection.
I have a z7ii with 24-70 f4, 14-30, 20, 85 f1.8, 105 Macro, and 24-200 z lenses. Every single lens has an Arcrest filter on it. I just don't see the sense in taking a risk with a front element when such good filters are available. Not cheap but I very rarely see any effect from the filter. Virtually never. Incidentally, for wilderness photography where weight is a paramount I now almost always just carry the 14-30, 24-200 and a 20mm for astro. The 24-200 continues to amaze me. For the average and many well above average photographers, it is all they need.
Wow Matt - I did not know about these filters from Nikon - this is really cool.
I also always use a front filter - mainly because of smudges and what not and having to wipe them off - I figure the less I touch the front element of the lens the better. I also figure the amount they diminish IQ if you buy high end ones it would be such a slight diminishment that nobody would ever be able to tell - which is pretty much true since nobody ever said - "it looks like you had a filter in front of your lens in that image." To the contrary, nobody has ever said anything - I'm sure its the same for you.
The only thing that I imagined that it might negatively impact is flaring as the filter might diffract incoming light from directly in front of the lens differently than might the actual front element potentially causing flaring that might otherwise be suppressed by the lens element alone. I decided that I did not mind if this was the case as it would only impact a small percentage of my shots - so ultimately I decided to continue to use filters. I chose the high end Pro Masters mainly because several camera shops I trust recommend them and also they have a lifetime warranty that if they break you get a new one for free.
That all said, this is very intriguing - I love the idea of using actual Nikon glass in front of my Nikon glass. I may switch to these filters gradually as it would be quite expensive to replace all 18 or so of my filters at once. On second thought, I might wait to hear what you have to say about these filters after you have had a chance to use some for a bit to see if you like them - or maybe get one to try, or just start using them for lenses I get going forward - or maybe all of the above lol.
Either way, thank you for bringing these filters to my attention!
-PD
P.S. Where do you buy these - I couldn't find them on Nikon USA site?
They're not available stateside for some reason. Maybe we have to bug Nikon to get the Arcrest here
Never used before but as I am obtaining the f1.2 glass perhaps it’s worth looking at. Thanks Matt.
As an FYI, they are just called Nikon NC Filter in the US. The Arcrest name isn't used in the US market. (And, yes, I have one on my 85/1.2)
The NC is an older generation filter compared to the Arcrest and have a newer coating. They don't yet offer the Arcrest stateside and it's been a few years. Maybe if we bug Nikon they might bring them here
Will these filters fit on non-Nikon lenses? I shoot a Sony A7iv with a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG DN Art lens and would like to know if these would fit?
I started using filters for the first time last year. Went for Urth and they are really good on my Z glass. Did some testing on and off and couldn't notice anything different really. Not the cheapest but not the most expensive either.
Addition: If you love the look of these Nikon filter....I know I do...but they are too expensive for you then Urth has some good specs: Australian company - glass made in Germany. Lifetime warranty. Slim but high quality design. 20 layer Nano coatings for easy clean and sharp pictures. They also plant 5 trees when your purchase. Their kits, especially for larger diameters, will still cost you several hundred but nice compromise I think.
Would like to see how they stack up against the Nikon filters. Filter comparison filter Matt?? Would be great to know what affect they actually have. Don't think I've ever seen if demonstrated well.
Great video yet again!
I have never heard of the Arcrest brand of filters by Nikon, but have been using the Nikon-branded filters from B&H. I wonder if they are the same thing.
Interesting, I've never heard of these and they don't seem to be readily available in the US. I only use Nikon NC filters on my lenses for protection and for the same reasons you've stated here. Do you know if Arcrest filters are the same as Nikon NC (Neutral Clear) filters?
They are a newer generation product with improved coatings but aren't available stateside yet. The coating is supposed to be more repelling like B+W Nano coating
@@Bunnyisms I found more info after I posted. DPReview had an article on them in 2017. The fact they still aren't available here must mean they aren't big sellers. Considering they are double the cost of Nikon NC filters that's not surprising.
Thanks Matt. I do the same on 'all' of my lenses. I used Nikon NC (Archest for US market).
Does anyone know of an authentic source for the Arcrest filters within the EU, please?
My national Nikon website shows nothing when searching for 'Arcrest'.
Went looking for these and don't see the name ARCREST shown in Nikon USA or B&H. I do see Nikon filters called Neutral Clear in both places. Like others I'm wondering if these are the same???? As far as using UV filters I stopped years ago but I wasn't using expensive lens either. When I bought the Z 25-120 and Z 105mc from a local camera store I succumbed to getting v filters. At the time these were the most expensive lens I ever bought, so ok lets be safe. Bought a slightly used 100-400 Z from B&H later and never really thought about a filter. Have to rethink that now. Hoping you can make clear what is available in the US. Thanks - Tim
I have always been in the "no crappy glass" on my lenses camp. This looks interesting. But I do not see them listed at U.S. stores. Perhaps I am missing them in my searches. Also not seeing them on Nikon US NPS site. May not have landed on our shores. I would consider these for the expensive lenses.
Thanks, Matt
For some reason Nikon USA doesn't have these listed, at all. I can however, but them overseas.
So maybe that's the way forward when I get my hand on a 50mm f/1.2
I've been hesitant on putting something in front of my glass but, if these are the real deal then. Hey.
Have you done some tests results between no filter and the arcrest to see if it alters detail at all at 100%??
Nikon ARCREST or B+W which one is better?
Indeed, having glass from the manufacturer itself should guarantee by default the best results since they know the quality of their own optics and it is in their best interest to pair them with filters that maintain the quality of the glass. I didn't know that these existed, and I might finally be tempted to try one. In my 12+ years of shooting with professional ILCs, I only had the misfortune of dropping my gear once due to extremely strong wind that knocked off the very sturdy Manfrotto tripod that I was using. I got lucky that the camera fell sideways and the body absorbed the shock; therefore, the lens was intact. It was a very expensive combination, and I'd rather invest the extra money than shell out the cost of a new $2,000+ lens!
If you use very high quality protector filters with great coatings made from very strong glass then yes - I just put a Kase filter on the end of my Z400/2.8 TC. I also use Hoya HD protector filters on all shorter glass 95mm dia and smaller.
Just the lens hood for me. I dropped my D850 with the 70-200 f2.8 bolted on and I dropped it directly on the front element and I suffered no more than a broken lens hood
Good on you. I did the same once, tried the 'no filter' approach. Ended up with a nice, visible scratch on the front lens. Perhaps 3mm long, outside the image circle likely, and I see no ill effects, but the lens value certainly went down a lot.
First two weeks into having the lens. Didn't even realize when/where/how it happened.
Yes, I'm rough with my gear. And yes, that was one reason why I still do filters today. The other is ease of cleaning when the cam is out'n about for extended periods of time (mine always is, kind of. If I bring it, it's out, ready).
@@marcusbraun8889 Isn't cleaning the filter the same as cleaning the lens, it's on the front and what ever is on the front needs cleaning
@@stevehayward1854 - sure, but you wanna be careful cleaning that front lens. Don't want any scratches there, don't want to damage the coatings.
Quick clean a filter? T-shirt, napkin, whatever....
I’ve always used a clear protective filter. I had my D5 in my holster bag and a AA battery rolled under the lens (24-70 2.8) Well the lens cap popped off and the battery shattered the filter! Would of been a much more expensive situation.
Thanks Matt
Nice video as always, Matt! As a landscape and product photographer, I'm a sharpness and detail fanatic, and have always used either B+W Nano or Hoya HD3 filters when ventured on a hike, and "accept" any alleged image degradation. However, in studio, I remove any UV/glass filters for maximum image sharpness and detail. On NikonUSA's site, they only seem to have Nikon "NC" filters, not "ARCrest". Are they the same, and would you be doing any filter comparsion testing?
It's been a few years and the Arcrest are not available stateside yet. They have different and more advanced coatings than the standard NC
@@Bunnyisms Thanks for this information!
Ny phones come out of their boxes to be fitted with a cover before use, my lenses are always bought with a clear filter since I bought my 1st SLR lens. it was a nikkor 58/1.2. still in use today.
I would love to see what you think of their various types of filters, ND, and others. That would make sense to me, at least.
Hi Matt, I have just bought the new Nikon filters, the Nikon Arcrest II filters (77 mm and 82 mm) in Japan. I have just opened the boxes. 😊 They look good. Now, I need to put them on my lenses, and first on my Z 24-70 mm f/2.8 and my Z 70-200 mm f/2.8. If I am satisfied, I will order the others (95 mm, 72 mm, 67 mm, 62 mm, 52 mm and 46 mm).
Hi Matt,
Also what about the other Nikon Filters.
Nikon 82mm Neutral Colour Filter Lens Protector £96.99
Since going digital I always use Promaster HGX Protection Filters which are clear and work great.
I have owned a LOT of Nikon glass. From DX to large format. I was aware of the Nikon brand of filters. I ALSO have seen the TESTS of various filter brands! The amount of degradation caused by the average filter is NOT that big a deal. I do a lot of farm photography. Dust and dirt is part of the DAILY hazard as is rain, snow, hail, etc., I'll opt for the protection everytime. If I was so driven by the fear of degrading photo quality I'd take up a NEW HOBBY! If I search for anything that makes photos sing, I'd take a great photo op, and also SHARP focus. And I USE NIKON gear as it has proven BETTER than a LOT of other gear I have tried.
I live on a farm. Yes I love my filters. I use B&W and now even tiffen (I used to hate tiffen back in the day).
I've had some lens defects of my own doing, but never to the front element. Matt, maybe better use the lens caps?
I'm with Roger Cicala, every optical element in front of the lens will degrade the image, maybe less, maybe more, but it will.
I won't use any protective filter, which don't protect that much anyway...
BTW the Nikon polarizing filter I have is pricey, but of finest quality.
What's the difference between Nikon's NC and Arcrest filter? Which is better?
I don’t know. I will try and find out 😀
I've used filters on and off for many years, and I've never even heard on Arcrest until now. Nikon kept that one quiet. I'll certainly look into it. Thank you. I've Just done a little bit of research (courtesy of google,) and they've been around since 2017, released only to the Japanese market
I find filters very much a hit and miss. I recently photographed a Hindu spiritual event in the Uk. It was pitch black, and the group marched through a village holding torch flames, and chanting. It was magical!! I only had the torch flames reflecting light off their faces and colourful clothing. The standard UV filters played havoc with gosting and flaring. They were soon whipped off after a couple of shots. I had two cameras; one set up with the Z 50mm 1.8s, and the other set up with the 105 f1.4g ed with the Ftz adapter. There are times when the value of the shot outweighs having the protection.
Thanks for the info on these new filters Matt, I’ve always used filters on my modest equipment. If I owned very expensive Nikon lenses I’d be adding these filters to my kit.
I found that wiping (cleaning) of filters wss easier, than the lenses as the lenses were convex, and the filters were flat. It was harder to get between the front lens and the lens body to clean them, while I could easily take a filter off for cleaning or replacing..
On the other hand, I feel that I get a bit better quality without a filter. Therefore, if I put the camera on a tripod (indoors), I remove the filter just before this and put it back after.
I’ve still got some old Nikon filters on some of my lenses. I don’t think the loss of quality matters to me. One of my sharpest photos was taken with a zoom lens through a dirty window.
I’ve always had Nikon NC filters on my lenses. They are made in Japan, though I don’t see Arcrest label. B&H doesn’t carry them.
Funny, they are not listed and not available on the Nikon USA website
Thanks for the heads-up, Matt. Have always and will always use a protective filter (unless I'm going to drop a weighted spike onto my lens from height ... then what's the use?)
But I've done my own extensive testing under more normal circumstances, which I think demonstrates that there is next to no IQ impairment using a *quality* protective filter. For decades I used B+W, but like you I settled on Hoya, since I was told they have superior coatings.
I joked in my 400mm f/4.5 video that I'd "take a chance" on a Nikon filter for that lens. It's called a Neutral Color NC Filter ($190CAD). I wonder if it's the same as this Arcrest, which I haven't heard of?
Same here, Matt ... filters have saved me a lot of money over the decades. The main point I made in my "should you use filters" video is that in inclement conditions where constant cleaning of the front element is required, this can abrade the glass. I actually have old filters that look like pro mist filters after use on just one mountaineering expedition! I could pass them off as "glamour filters." 😀
I'm gonna see if I can source one of these Arcrest units to test beside the Hoya and Nikon NC.
Interesting, I have the same question as I use Nikon NC filters on my lenses.
I think I'll just keep being careful as I have been for the last 40 years. Seems like they are very proud of them and the price shows it. 112mm would likely be more costly than my 24-120 S line lens.
Like yourself Matt I have always used filters to protect my lens. I have a Hoya ultra pro UV filter on every lens I own 😊
I have never heard of Nikon ARCREST filters before. Google search returns a post on DPReview from June 2017. No mention on Nikon USA or B&H.
I use B+W XS-Pro UV Haze filters on all of my Nikon F glass. Primarily because B+W uses low profile brass filter rings in that product line. I don't use aluminum filter rings due to having them become stuck too many times.
Roger Cicala at Lensrentals has posted a few entries on the topic of protective lens filters and has tested quite a few: "My Not Quite Complete Protective Filter Article".
He also mentions that front lens element scratches, if minor, rarely affect image quality if at all. The hit comes if you sell the lens. Also, replacing front lens elements on modern lenses has become very expensive and often not cost effective.
I use protective filters especially in wet conditions as they add to the water resistance of the lens. I do take the filter off when shooting at night with point light sources in the frame to minimize reflections. Except if there is rain or mist, then the filter stays on.
Ever since l found a scratch on a lens because the plastic lens cap had come off in bag & rubbed on lens l use cheap UV filters as lens caps & remove when shooting.
Had that happening, too, lens cap coming off inside, but always used filters so was never an issue.
I jumped once of a small concrete wall, not enough 'forward clearance'. My shoulder bag dove on top of the concrete wall, with smashing results. Since then my lenses go lens cap down into bags/belt pouches. I think I didn't have lens caps coming off anymore since then either.
@@marcusbraun8889 Shame we have to go through these issues before making change.
@@isotechimages.9130 - well, I guess we have to find out what works for us.
At the end of the day to me those are tools, and my focus is on using them, not preserving them. Of course I have to accept the possibility of damage/total loss with such an approach. I'm ok with that.
Long time ago I was in Malaysia, on the way to Singapore, where I would get an F4, my first AF cam. I already had an AF 80-200 2.8 (a while later a total loss in the Philippine, involved a concrete pier 🥴) and met a fellow who had a D90. Eager to try AF of my 80-200 I offered it to him to put on the D90. He wouldn't do it as he wasn't sure if it was compatible or would be damaging his body...😂
I used to always keep UV filters on my lenses, but in the last few years I have stopped this. My changes was based on several things, one being the inevitable reduction, however minor, in image quality, the other being evidence that they don’t really help protect much. One source that I respect is Steve Perry, who did some fairly extensive tests, but there are many others too. Of course I may still use one if there is blowing sand or such where I am shooting.
How come they don’t protect much? That doesn’t sound very logical. If I put a barrier in front of the lens, surely it will protect what’s behind it?
@@Ahduciekwndnbbbsvvvghhhyyyyy I recommend watching Steve Perry's UA-cam video 'UV Filters - Do You Need Them Or Not?'. He does several experiments to see what the effect is of having a filter on a lens and I agree with his conclusions at the end. The fact is that by the time you buy a high quality 'protective' filter for 4 or 5 lenses, you have probably spent what it would cost to repair a lens that did become damaged, and since in the most optimistic case a filter will only protect from some very specific impact scenarios that are probably not even the most common, I don't think it's worth it. Instead I would suggest buying one 'protective' filter for each filter size you use and put it on only when it makes the most sense, like with blowing sand. I know in my experience (40+ years) I have never had something impact my front lens itself but I have dropped a lens once and of course there is no way a filter will help in that case. And for those worried about minor scratches to their front lens, I would say that modern high quality lens materials and coatings are VERY good, and it takes a lot to scratch one. And last, I have noticed image degradation in some instances, even with high quality filters (yes, I'm a pixel peeper).
All my opinion of course, every photographer should do what they want and what they are comfortable with.
@@pjcornelius Well said!
Hi Matt,
Always put Hoya filters on my Nikon lenes,
for over 30 years cannot see any difference in quality in the images.
Like to know Matt, can you see any difference as 82mm ARCREST filter,
Over £170 PLUS Carriage from Japan.
Hoya 82mm REVO SMC UV(O) Filter £72.00
As I'm waiting for my Nikkor 85mm f1.2 S Lens to arrive.
Regards Nigel Rand
UK Nikon Z 9 Pro
Many years ago I scratched the front element on a lens while cleaning. So, for me a clear filter protects the front element not only from the environment, but from me scratching it while removing what nature deposited. Lenses and coatings have come a long way so perhaps the protection is not AS important. This is my own logic and methodology after decades of experience... I keep a UV filter on all of my lenses while handling, transportation and when in adverse environments. Otherwise, I take them off while taking photos and put them back on when done.
I use Hoya Fusion One protectors which have always worked for me. Note the Arcrest option,. Apart from the 200-600 and a Nikkor Z S Line 70-300 my basic Z glass investment is complete (money no object ‘nice to haves’ excepted). Funny I’ve never associated Oz with cold and rain.
It's too bad that the Nikon Arcrest aren't available stateside. I really like Nikon filters a lot especially their polarisers. For most of my lenses I use the B+W filters because I can get them more easily in the states. If they had the Arcrest here I would get that over the B+W. The B+W filters I have have a repelling coating on them which the standard Nikon filters don't have. I think the Arcrest do have a repelling coating too, and that would make it more interesting for me
Come to Sunny S Africa Matt >> same latitude as Melbourne. T Shirt Shorts and Slops today but going a weeks Milky Way Photography in the Semi Desert and Snow predicted tonight
I’ve always thought that using a UV filter would impact image quality. So my solution (as has been suggested by others) was to use the lens hood to protect the front element. HOWEVER, I recently changed my opinion when I purchased the new 85mm f/1.2 and saw that large element so close to the front of the lens. At a cost of nearly $3,000, I though it might be best to invest in a quality UV filter to protect the glass. Personally, I use filters from Breakthrough Photography. They use Schott glass manufactured in Germany.
Plain glass (like the ARCREST ones Matt just described) makes more sense than UV. Digitals cameras already have a filter over the sensor against UV and IR.
I’ve also used a UV or skylight filter on my lenses. Maybe next time I buy another lens I’ll try this new Nikon filter.
I do miss Terry Thomas... As to dropping the front clear glass protects your lens threads which to my history takes more damage than the actual glass...
In Switzerland they don't exist even by Nikon themself!?
I used to swear by UV filters and clear filters...now I'm great with lens caps and hoods.
I would rather not use a protective filter, but like you I always do where possible.
A wipe with a lens cloth is unavoidable from time to time, and each wipe is inevitably going to risk a scratch or an n'th of a micro millimetre off the coating. I know coatings are tougher these days, but I will never forget the crazy paving on the front of my well-used Nikon AIS lenses given to me when I started my training!
Lens hoods are virtually no protection against liquids and dirt. Ever photographed someone spraying the road with tar?....
I have never heard of Arcrest and I can't seem to find them in the UK - perhaps a US / AU thing? I use Nikon NC (no colour).
Totally un-scientifically, I do worry about add-on filters being affected by strong specular highlights potentially causing internal reflections, or where strong light is hitting the front of the filter from the side potentially causing flare. However, I would still rather use a filter and keep an eye out for problems, rather than risk £££ of glass without one.
I've had a couple smashed in action too, so those filters saved the lens itself from damage. I put a stone chip in the front of my old 14-24mm f-mount, which wouldn't take a conventional front filter, but it proves the risk of not having one when you can.
Staying home or putting your camera away in adverse conditions is just not possible for a pro, but I accept that occasional snappers may have less need for such protection.
And I don't believe in waiting to put one on 'when you need it' - you just never know when a lens-damaging incident might occur - that'd be like waiting to put a seatbelt on until you have a car crash!
Am I the only one who just rocks the lens hood?? 😅. Maybe I’m just more careful with my gear but I don’t see the point in a clear filter. To each their own though.
I shoot a lot in bad weather. Fine rain or sea spray. I tried just the 85 mm 1.2 hood on its own. Unfortunately pollutants made it to the front element. So thus I looked for a solution. This video is what I found.
@@MattIrwinPhotography yeah I suppose if you’re in conditions like that fair enough. I’m not using $3000 lenses. My most expensive is around $900.
Good choice Matt! I myself have standardised on the Kase 112mm magnetic filter kit that is made for the Z4-28 2.8. I bought a couple more of the Nikon lens hoods for that lens as it also fits on my 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and 501.2, then added the Kase magnetic ring to each hood. Finally apart from the kit, I added the Kase 112mm UV filter plus night filter. No more dropping expensive filters or getting finger and thumb smudges on my glass while trying to screw in filters for me! 😂 This combination is my comprise for solving that age old problem of to filter or not or hood or not! 👍🏾🙏🏾
As my father once told me, "You can make a $50 mistake or you can make a $300 mistake." Nowadays my lenses are more expensive, so the advice is even more pertinent. By the way, do you use a specific program to de-noise your images?
Great advice. No de- noise. Just low iso and capture one. 👍😀
@@MattIrwinPhotography Awesome low-light shots you produce!
@@PharaohMan007 Are there any photos in this? do you mean video? shutter at 1/50 w 1.2-F2 is a ton of light
@@northofbrandon Hi, photos in what?
any experience with B+W filters?
When I use a uv (rare), this is the brand
@@csc-photo cool
They are excellent.
I have a filter on my lens, I have to say they pass much more light then a lens-cap. 😜 (mostly B&W filter). - Lens hoods are obligatory for professional photographers anyway..
I've personally always used B+W Filters .... They cost about as much as the plain glass Nikon is selling. I've never really had any issues so far with image quality yet.
I have done many tests with Leica filters and others and they all degrade the image a little. I have saved a brand new 90 Summicron that fell off a shelf. Filter ring was damaged. Always use in rain, snow, blowing sand , or other nasty environments.
I've always used both high quality UV filters and lens hoods on my SLR/DSLR/mirrorless glass. And in the 20 years I've done this I've never had any issues with the UV filters myself.
I've had to replace one filter after the Nikkor Z lens was knocked by a tree branch during a bushwalk and scratched (even with the hood on). That made me very thankful that I still use them. Saved my expensive lens.
I also shoot on the beach a lot and the amount of salt and sand that hits the front element isn't funny. I'm very happy knowing that my front elements aren't subjected to that punishment and very regular cleaning.
Hi Matt
Well,
I would like to see some real tests before I'm convinced,
If I had , (and hope to have) , a Z600s, which is disgustingly expensive and there may be a case for a filter, god only knows how much one of those would cost
I did have a G1 Tammy 150-600, which, as you would know will not work on a Z9, plus, that would be like putting second hand retreads on a 911
One would think that @ $25,000 AUD + would come with some form of durability?😄
Regards,
Gary
............ AU
Lense hood and cap and simple care.
Every lens I have (and I have plenty and they're all Nikon) is fitted with a Genuine Nikon NC filter the minute it comes out of the box. And the only time they come off is if they get marked or scratched.
What I needed a few years back was a lifejacket to fit a Nikkor 50mm f1.4. I dropped one into the Manchester Ship Canal in NW England a few years back😢. Lesson= When you're changing lens while standing on a swing bridge, never set the lens down on the steelwork side girders when there are kids on bikes nearby. The lens is in about 25 feet of water, but, the front element should be OK.
I'm surprised that you haven't done your usual comparative analysis with this filter question. You regularly go into exhaustive testing of lens flare, chromatic aberrations, etc. Why not do the same for a first class lens with/without the filter, and with a couple of other good quality name-brand filters, and then even I suppose with a couple of cheapie filters? I use a couple of different medium-expensive UV filter brands rated highly from B&H on my lenses, but I haven't done serious testing.
Jeff testing will come, this video was to share something I never knew existed. Testing takes time, and real world use might be 6 months. More will come. :)
Hoods and taking care to prevent physical damage. A cheap UV filter is also useful. Any degradation in image quality can be corrected with AI photography software. The latter has taken away the need for the most expensive cameras, lenses and filters in image creation.
On my lenses worth more than my car I can't add a UV filter; on my lesser glass all have the filter for no other reason than in film days they made a difference, so the habit, I guess. Traipsing through brush and forests with long glass I just keep telling myself glass is stronger than wood fibre (and hope any coatings are on the inner side of those front elements) LOL
I just purchased a nikon 400mm 4.5 and the box showed that it was made in china not Japan.
on that kind of glass Nikon could throw it in for free, I think. margin on filters us usually gauging anyway.
mindfulness goes a long way in protecting your glass, the use of filters is trivial to me, though I've spent way too much money on them in the past, with the exception of a night correction filter here and there and the occasional ND filter I think they are like all of those insurance premiums we've paid through the years and never seen a return on.
Must be I like shooting in rain and sea spray. So I see real impacts on front elements. As I’m interested in extreme atmospheric conditions in my images. What do you mostly shoot Craig ?
@@MattIrwinPhotography I'm wildlife and macro-centric with the occasional event, portrait session or wedding, though I've been rather sedentary with photography lately because of a poor work-life balance. In your case it makes sense for sure! I am in the central US, near Chicago, so no salt here, but plenty of snow and ice. I had a gust of wind knock over a softbox once and it plowed right into my camera and tripod, which went straight into the concrete but somehow I lucked out and the only damage was to the lens hood which shattered, the sturdy D700 was not harmed, nor the 85mm 😯 I thought for sure the front element would be chipped or shattered. Keep up the great work and vids, all the best!
I've found that lens hoods protect better than filters. Filters get stuck on the lens and have to be broken to take them off. When you break them, there is a good chance that the broken glass could scratch the lens. A good lens protected by a lens hood will protect your glass far better than the risk of using filters.
True, I've got a 16-35 f4 with broken off filter thread for that reason.
However, I like filters as you can give'm a quick wipe to clean, no worries about coatings, front lens. Plus lens hoods are so darn big. They make your lens a lot bigger when in the bag.
They sell grips to remove really stuck filters if needed. Magnetic filters are terrific to avoid this issue too.
I second that motion. Sometimes I wonder why manufacturers can't think of alternatives instead of glass? a thin clear acrylic or high resolution see through plastic perhaps? currently many lens hood are very flimsy, light and easy to come off is nudged wrongly?
@@PharaohMan007 That's a solution to a problem I don't have. I don't put $300 filters on $3000 lenses - no matter who makes them or how many times they promise that sharpness isn't affected or that with these really special gloves or grips you can get them off - I promise. Geesh. Skip the filter. Skip the headache.
@@DamonMoritz cool! Sorry for the advice then.
YES!!!! Absolutely YES you should. I have a UV Filter on every one of my lenses to protect them. I will say to each his/her own, and it is a personal choice as to if you want to do it. I do use HOYA UV filters on all of my lenses and they are great. They has been no compromise or problems with image quality at all. So YES! For me it is a absolute YES!!!!
There is no reason anymore to use a protective filter. Front elements are very durable - much more so than the finicky thin sheet of glass that is prone to shatter on blunt impacts and that WILL damage your lens for sure.
I have no idea why the hate on filters. I have sweaty hand as well as I live in a humid dusty country. Filters are just another level of protecting your gear.
I've never dropped a lens. 🙄
Of course I do. My cam is always out and ready, consequently gets dirty and often needs a quick wipe. Best done with the shirt, a napkin, or whatever is nearby...😂
So yes, use a filter, then replace it as needed.
Wise man.
Why shoot through a window? The thickness of the filter glass won’t protect the lens if you drop it. Possibly useful on a windy day in the desert, but otherwise not necessary IMO.
Sure. Not a standard window. I think the drop is so specific to each drop we can’t say. Sometimes it will assist, sometimes it won’t. And yes my main reason is for airborne pollutants. Sea spray, sand, industrial pollutants etc.
This is one those endless debates, Look, if my lens is £3k and I'm on the beach, then a filter on the front for salt spray etc is a must. A filter might also protect the lens front from careless scratches. Stupid not too frankly. And those that say it interferes with IQ. Rubbish, Quality filters these days have very little image degardation and so whet? It takes but a moment to remove the thing while you're on a shoot anyways. Just DO IT....add a filter to protect your expensive lens. I use Nikon's own filters generally or Kase magnetics for specific purpose, like using ND for example.
I have a feeling you already have a Z8 otherwise don't understand your lack of enthusiasm. if so' Happy for you
I use Hoya Protectors. Expensive, but worth the money. Easier and safer to clean than the front element of your lenses and may provide additional protection in some very limited circumstances where the front element could be damaged. The effect on IQ is negligible even at 200%.
No comparison or anything? Seems like an ad
I don't think these are available in the US?
I will try and find out 😀
I'm with you. For more than 50 years I have used high quality, neutral filters on my lenses. I may have scratched and otherwise abused filters, but never the front element of a lens.
Filters on the front of the lens are fine, and they should be of the highest quality one could afford. But these filters, 95% UV , should be removed from time to time and the elements of the lens exposed to strong sunlight. One of the most evil consequences of having a UV filter attached to a lens for years on end, is the promotion of the growth of fungus, which is in the air around us. When I bought my Nikon F cameras and the AI & AIS lenses in the late 70s early 80s, My contrast and uV filters were all Nikon. Later when the Hasselblads and Leics were added I opted for B&W MC and F-Pro filters mainly for transmission qualities. Most of my photography on all formats is still on film, but I do use Nikon, Canon and Olympus digitals. Personally I don't believe the amount of very large glass or plastic that Pro photographers mount in front of their lenses for effects. Many many brands, and not one of them is either a lens or glass manufacturer. Filters are very expensive, but if you opt to use one, then go for the best.
A few friends and I were shooting around a narrow wooden pier one night. I was with a male friend when the two young ladies came running to us shouting “TWO MOONS!” I took her Nikon D300s and it showed an image on the back of two full moons. The other girl showed me her Canon something and it also had two moons. I took off the clear filters and told them to try again. Success. Magic!
it was smudged. Clean the filter and go about your business.
@@gosman949 - not smudged, quite sharp.
Just the image being mirrored by light bouncing inside lens. Too much glass.
Lol I call bull crap
@@lukes5533 yepper. I think so too.
There is nothing wrong with using a glass UV filter to protect your lens. It won’t affect the image. Are Nikon filters better? If you believe so, but any quality made filter will do.
I agree that getting the filter from the same company which makes the lens is a big win. I do need to do that more.
While the protective glass is very helpful, I think the protection of the filter ring is equally beneficial. The times I've dropped a lens without a filter or hood, the damage was to the filter ring of the lens. When there was a filter on the lens, the filter glass broke, the filter ring bent, but when it was removed the lens was intact.
Paying thousands of dollars for top notch optics from Nikon to only put a (cheap) UV filter on it for "protection" seems counterproductive. And yes, they DO negatively impact image quality. Jan Wegener did a pretty good comparison video on this very issue. I have not used a filter for protection since the late 1980's, relying on the lens hood for protection and never had an issue. Also, as others have said, the amount of scratches that it takes on the front element before it impacts image quality is surprising, which is a further argument against the need for a filter for protection.
Gotta be honest here, Matt: it really sounds like a sponsored video. If you’d compare a set of shots between these filters and any other brands, I’d get it. But just saying that Nikon states it’s the best you can get… well sure, what should they say other than that?
Hi Nelson, I wrote this in another comment, I will copy it here.
Hi K J, this is a first look video. (and I will add that to the title - it's a good idea) I have used filters, as I said in the video my entire career. Almost 35 years. Personally I have never seen any ill effect of a filter (I have always spent good money). So in my personal experience over those years, and probably something like 100 lenses, they offer more good than bad for my use case. That is my experience, so this is the place where this video comes from.
Lets note a few things.
I suspect I put my lenses in more extreme settings than the majority of photographers. I like to shoot in heavy rain, or seas spray, or anywhere atmospheric conditions are interesting and or extreme.
Of course some photographers don't dream of putting their gear in harms way. I am happiest when things are most extreme. For example, photographers who are studio bound, yes filters may be a waste of time for them.
I recently listened to all those who said don't use filters. Against my years of experience.
And used the very expensive 85mm 1.2 in harsh conditions, rain and sea spray. I found even with the lens hood on, atmospheric pollutants made a home on the front element. The front element was now partially coated with fine sand particles and sea spray had cemented themselves to the front. I was disappointed I had listened to others, on reflection, who probably don't expose their gear in as harsh conditions. Who don't engage in my use case. I was disappointed.
So I looked for a solution. This is what I found.
Now of course we all make conclusions in life based on our experience, practices and use case. My 30 year history with owning and punishing Nikon equipment, my own experiences with how I expose my front elements to danger, this experience comes to bare, for me, and for this video.
In 6 months I'll come back to you with some real world mileage. This is me sharing my story, of finding a product I did not know existed, and hoping it will be the best in the market. Coming out of the same design house as the lenses themselves seems like a good start. Perhaps it is something others might like to explore themselves, as i said in the video, they may not know they even exist. This is a community, and I look forward to the community building a picture together.
Better buy an insurance for your expensive equipment that pays a new camera or lens - it is cheaper than „protection“ filters for your lenses.