Decent filter required for my 300mm prime

nigel_b · #1 (**permalink**) 07-06-2010, 04:28 PM

I'll have another go at posting this, don't know what happened to the last one I did!

I need a better quality filter for my new 300mm prime lens, which takes 77mm diameter filters.

Does anyone have any recommendations please?

The main purpose of the filter would be to protect the objective lens.

Thanks.

Lancashire Lad · #2 (**permalink**) 07-06-2010, 04:59 PM

Like all things photography, people will have their own preferences regards filters.

Personally, I don't think that you will find anything better than the Hoya PRO1digital UV filter for this sort of application.

Not cheap by any means, (approx £60.00 @ 77mm), but I would think a worthwhile investment for retaining the inherent image quality of a 300mm prime.

If you really want the best of the best, then there is also a "HD" version at approximately £80.00.

Regards,
Mike.

beeje25 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-06-2010, 05:38 PM

from someone who does a lot of photography I recommend not skimping on the filters by the best you can afford if you can get the money go for the hoya hd filter

DrNickBurton · #4 (**permalink**) 07-06-2010, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigel_b

The main purpose of the filter would be to protect the objective lens.

Thanks.

If so, you could save your money and just use the lens hood as protection.

Geoff F · #5 (**permalink**) 07-06-2010, 07:53 PM

Hoya filters are certainly widely used and recommended.

Adding extra glass can result in reducing image quality but under some conditions a uv filter can give a stronger and sharper result. So sometimes you win a bit and sometimes you lose.

All in all, I prefer to use a filter.

A good lens hood can reduce the risk of damage but a lot depends on how you use your camera. If, like me, it often gets splashed with mud, salt spray, etc, I definitely recommend a filter.

Eventually, my filters acquire a few scratches so I'm glad of this extra bit of 'insurance'.

BillyPilgrim · #6 (**permalink**) 07-06-2010, 11:21 PM

Another vote for not bothering with a filter.

A while back I checked the price of replacing the front element on a Canon 300mm prime and it was less than a hundred quid. Not much (if at all) dearer than a decent filter. So I decided not to bother with one. That was about 4 years ago and despite being a clumsy sod I still haven't managed to scratch it!

Boddie · #7 (**permalink**) 07-06-2010, 11:26 PM

I agree with Nick

Use the lens hood, or don't bother with one at all and just exercise a bit of care.

5 years I have been using all types of lenses and have never suffered a problem

nigel_b · #8 (**permalink**) 08-06-2010, 09:19 AM

Food for thought for sure.

I suppose I could retain the filter for use in what one of my friends once called "a hostile environment" and use it without normally. Good call. I think I will just get a quote from Nikon for replacing the front element.

Thanks everyone.

wizzo · #9 (**permalink**) 09-06-2010, 04:06 PM

Another thing to consider guys. Whilst never a great idea to scratch your precious glass, remember that small scratches, aside from causing possible flare won't show up on your photo's anyway. Wizzo

Jim Ford · #10 (**permalink**) 09-06-2010, 10:02 PM

I go along with the idea of avoiding extra and possibly unnecessary air-glass surfaces, but must admit I'm a bit neurotic about damaging the front element of lenses.

With a lens protector/filter I feel a bit more gung-ho when frequently cleaning rain of the filter with the corner of my 'T' shirt, and possibly scratching the filter because there's grit on it, than I would in doing the same on a lens.

A scratch is a scratch - they don't get better and only get added to.

Jim