• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Multi-coated Nikon filter for 300mm lens

Latest Gallery

Tompkins Square Park

A
Tompkins Square Park

  • 8
  • 0
  • 75
Siesta Time

A
Siesta Time

  • 2
  • 1
  • 57

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,859
Messages
2,846,703
Members
101,574
Latest member
JRSCollection
Recent bookmarks
0

Joseph Bell

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
275
Location
Toronto
Format
35mm
Hello fine people!
I just went bananas and purchased the Nikon 300mm f4 PF lens even though it will only work at f4 on my F100! The salesman convinced me to buy a 77mm Nikon neutral color multicoated filter so as to protect my investment. But now I wonder if I was suckered!! Why would I buy such lovely glass only to put another piece of glass in front of it? After all, the lens has a hood, which should give me ample protection.
Anyhow, fine film photographers, what say you? Should I remove this filter posthaste or leave it on and forget about it? Do you use protective filters on your telephoto lenses? Why or why not? I thank you sweetly and sincerely for your time and erudition!
 
Joseph Bell said:
Hello fine people!
I just went bananas and purchased the Nikon 300mm f4 PF lens even though it will only work at f4 on my F100! The salesman convinced me to buy a 77mm Nikon neutral color multicoated filter so as to protect my investment. But now I wonder if I was suckered!! Why would I buy such lovely glass only to put another piece of glass in front of it? After all, the lens has a hood, which should give me ample protection.
Anyhow, fine film photographers, what say you? Should I remove this filter posthaste or leave it on and forget about it? Do you use protective filters on your telephoto lenses? Why or why not? I thank you sweetly and sincerely for your time and erudition!
Click to expand...
I use older Nikon L37c and new or used B&W UV filters on all my high end glass. You're only a Virgin once, I would make sure you have the best filter, new that would mean B&W for me.
 
Why then no lens* is delivered by the manufacturer with built-in protective pane? To be able to sell such as an extra?


*aside lenses at waterproof cameras
 
Look at the glass, this is why you leave a protective filter on. The owner shot motor cycle races and hill climbs, got grenaded resulting in serious front element damage.

003.JPG
 
^^^^Ricks picture says it all for me. but he's preaching to the choir here.

A couple of comments though.
A: When someone says "it degrades the image" is it actually visible in a 16X20 or 20X24 print?
B: There's a lens rental company somewhere on the web that shows pictures taken with lenses that
have their front elements truly trashed, the pictures would typically have to be examined under high magnification to see the fault.

One advantage of a filter is to protect the front element from scratches, cleaning marks and thumbprints.

With that, I'm happier with a filter.
 
Hello ! Thank you all, truly. I am very grateful for your informed opinions!
 
 
I really assumed it would work at all apertures? I don't see a reason why it wouldn't. The f100 has the aperture sub dial.

But back to the original, always a protective filter, no matter what. If there is any noticeable drop in image quality. I will take it over a scratch!!
 
John Koehrer said:
^^^^Ricks picture says it all for me. but he's preaching to the choir here.

A couple of comments though.
A: When someone says "it degrades the image" is it actually visible in a 16X20 or 20X24 print?
B: There's a lens rental company somewhere on the web that shows pictures taken with lenses that
have their front elements truly trashed, the pictures would typically have to be examined under high magnification to see the fault.

One advantage of a filter is to protect the front element from scratches, cleaning marks and thumbprints.

With that, I'm happier with a filter.
Click to expand...
Marks on the front element don't generally show or degrade the image, until you turn towards a light source, you know of what I speak.
 
cjbecker said:
I really assumed it would work at all apertures? I don't see a reason why it wouldn't. The f100 has the aperture sub dial.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, this funky new design causes the lens to only work wide open on 35mm bodies, subdial or not. It is my intention to use this lens on the F100 and perhaps also once in a while on a somewhat newer Nikon whose name I won't dare utter!
 
 
I wonder what the pictures would look like if it was no filter, one high grade filter( no full list given by author) and one low grade filter - however those are designated? It would certainly help if a list of high end filters were provided. For instance I always thought Hoya met this definition but maybe I'm wrong

I always end up wearing a bit of a wry smile when "amusing articles" or any article seem to be set up to help me reach one definite conclusion. There seems always to be a hint of the detective's/lawyer's mantra. Never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

pentaxuser
 
I recently bought a Tamron Adaptall 300mm f2.8 with both Nikon and Pentax K mounts, and the Tamron 1.4x extender. The lens takes 43mm filters internally; the front needs a 112mm filter! Those suckers are EXPENSIVE! I finally scored a used one in decent condition, needed a thorough cleaning. My thought is that even a B&W filter is cheaper than having that huge front element repaired, if such is even possible.
 
Joseph Bell said:
Yes indeed, this funky new design causes the lens to only work wide open on 35mm bodies, subdial or not. It is my intention to use this lens on the F100 and perhaps also once in a while on a somewhat newer Nikon whose name I won't dare utter!
Click to expand...

I hear you. I found that the Pentax Adaptall mount for the Tamron f2.8 300 above worked fine on my LX, but on my Pentax K 5 it would not stop down! After a little Oh, sh**! time, some research revealed that an Adaptall II mount was needed. A little search and I scored one. Now that ginormous 4 or 5 pound lens will work on all my Pentax gear, or on my Nikon film SLR bodies. As you can imagine I did not share details of this purchase with my long-suffering Wife. She is a treasure!
 
pentaxuser said:
I always end up wearing a bit of a wry smile when "amusing articles" or any article seem to be set up to help me reach one definite conclusion. There seems always to be a hint of the detective's/lawyer's mantra. Never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

pentaxuser
Click to expand...

Ha! Well said and very true
 
GRHazelton said:
I hear you. I found that the Pentax Adaptall mount for the Tamron f2.8 300 above worked fine on my LX, but on my Pentax K 5 it would not stop down! After a little Oh, sh**! time, some research revealed that an Adaptall II mount was needed. A little search and I scored one. Now that ginormous 4 or 5 pound lens will work on all my Pentax gear, or on my Nikon film SLR bodies. As you can imagine I did not share details of this purchase with my long-suffering Wife. She is a treasure!
Click to expand...

A benevolent secret!
 
Joseph Bell said:
Hello fine people!
I just went bananas and purchased the Nikon 300mm f4 PF lens even though it will only work at f4 on my F100! The salesman convinced me to buy a 77mm Nikon neutral color multicoated filter so as to protect my investment. But now I wonder if I was suckered!! Why would I buy such lovely glass only to put another piece of glass in front of it? After all, the lens has a hood, which should give me ample protection.
Anyhow, fine film photographers, what say you? Should I remove this filter posthaste or leave it on and forget about it? Do you use protective filters on your telephoto lenses? Why or why not? I thank you sweetly and sincerely for your time and erudition!
Click to expand...
leave it on and forget about it. it won't effect your images but protect your lens. I have one on all my lenses and never take them off. keeps me from having to clean my lenses ever.
 
pentaxuser said:
... It would certainly help if a list of high end filters were provided.
...
Click to expand...

I have such a list, based on tests, bookmarked on my old steam powered phone - I'll provide a link late this evening.

Hoya does indeed rank high.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
leave it on and forget about it. it won't effect your images but protect your lens. I have one on all my lenses and never take them off. keeps me from having to clean my lenses ever.
Click to expand...

The filter is on and will stay on! Thank you!
 
M
AgX said:
Why then no lens* is delivered by the manufacturer with built-in protective pane? To be able to sell such as an extra?


*aside lenses at waterproof cameras
Click to expand...
My Nikon 400mm f2.8 has a protective pane. Of course I doubt that Nikon still has the part.:smile:
 
Canon had such too, but on a lens with a crystal front lens elemenrt.
 
Theo Sulphate said:
I have such a list, based on tests, bookmarked on my old steam powered phone - I'll provide a link late this evening.

Hoya does indeed rank high.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Hoya tends to be the"go-to" lens. It has been for me and in the U.K. it seems a lot cheaper than others mentioned such as B+W Maybe you pay largely for the name but even if you get a marginal improvement then as long as this isn't perceptible with one or at most two lens on the camera then it doesn't matter.

pentaxuser
 
When I added a Hoya UV filter to the front of my 300mm F/4 af Nikkor I notices a slight drop in infinity sharpness. I still use the filter when transporting and setup but remove it when photographing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom