• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Filter ?? (1 Viewer)

R

rautospoon

Member
Hi, I've just purchased a Zeiss Victory Diascope 85 "bundle" and I'm thinking of fitting either a B&W Clear Protective (007) or UV/Haze (010) filter.
Which (if either) would members recommend and why ?
Cheers.
 
We use a Heliopan UV SH PMC multi-coated filter on our 85 Zeiss, which doesn't change light transmission, protects the front lens, cuts haze -- and most important -- you clean the filter, not that expensive objective lens, which remains flawless.

Mike
 
UV filter offers no benefit for you visually (human vision does not gor there) or with digital photography. It is a relic of film photography. Also very difficult to make large 88mm optical flat that won't negatively affect image quality. Critical optical tests have shown this to be the case from the cheapest to most expensive filter models.

Recommendation is no filter. It's a fieldscope. It's supposed to get dirty with use. And when it does, you clean it. Just like your even more expensive car.
 
Last edited:
BTW, is it common with provisions, a thread perhaps, for a filter in front of the objective on scopes today ?

Cheers,
Anders
 
Filter ??

RJM said:
UV filter offers no benefit for you visually (human vision does not gor there) or with digital photography. It is a relic of film photography. Also very difficult to make large 88mm optical flat that won't negatively affect image quality. Critical optical tests have shown this to be the case from the cheapest to most expensive filter models.

Recommendation is no filter. It's a fieldscope. It's supposed to get dirty with use. And when it does, you clean it. Just like your even more expensive car.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies so far.
Just wondered why Zeiss (and indeed other "top end" manufacturers) with all their "world class" optical knowledge and experience go to the trouble and expense of fitting a thread to their objective lenses, if the actual effect of a filter is "negative" as you state ?
What about a "Clear Protective"(non UV) filter?
Cheers.
 
Last edited:
You will also notice that all the fieldscope OEMs do not offer protection filters as a standard add-on accessory in their sports optics catalogs. They sell just about everything else though.

If you care about IQ, and isn't that why you spent $$$ for an Alpha ED lens, then you won't use a protection filter UNLESS you find yourself in an place where IQ is already being negatively affected by weather, like head-on into a sandstorm.

The fact is, the objective lens can get pretty dirty, practically opaque, before IQ starts to be negatively affected. On the other hand, it only takes a tiny amount of goop on the eye lens to have a negative impact on IQ. So be vigilant about eyepiece cleaning, but the objective just needs an occasional rinse under the faucet. Zeiss has you covered with the LotuTec objective lens coating so scope cleaning is simple and easy.
 
Last edited:
An earlier thread describes a birder's experience scratching a scope filter on a barb wire fence. Some birders also prefer to use a SOC. The correct filter size for the Zeiss is 86mm (on the back of the lens cap).

Some well-known birders in Ontario felt their eyesight had been affected by many years of looking through scopes without sunglasses. I have no idea how much UV is cut through a scope's lenses without a filter. So far I haven't seen any elephants; so the filter must be working.

I've tried the scope with and without the filter, and can't tell the difference. A birder volunteering at the Bruce Peninsula Bird Observatory several years ago described his 100mm Optolyth scope (which he didn't bring from Germany) as effective in cutting haze.

Do DSLR cameras have a UV filter in front of the sensor?

Mike
 
Last edited:
"A birder volunteering at the Bruce Peninsula Bird Observatory several years ago described his 100mm Optolyth scope (which he didn't bring from Germany) as effective in cutting haze".


Was that with or without a UV filter ?

Cheers.
 
rautospoon said:
"A birder volunteering at the Bruce Peninsula Bird Observatory several years ago described his 100mm Optolyth scope (which he didn't bring from Germany) as effective in cutting haze".


Was that with or without a UV filter ?

Cheers.
Click to expand...

AFAIK UV filters are not made in that large a size. The concrete example was intended to illustrate that cutting haze is an effect that is possible, that at least one birder saw and valued the capability, and that a scope's regular lenses may effectively block a significant amount of UV light.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Mike Penfold said:
AFAIK UV filters are not made in that large a size. The concrete example was intended to illustrate that cutting haze is an effect that is possible, that at least one birder saw and valued the capability, and that a scope's regular lenses may effectively block a signiicant amount of UV light.

Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I suppose we can argue/debate "until the cows come home" as to whether IQ is or is not degraded by using a filter, but I do think that the "protective" benefits of using a filter cannot surely be denied.
Cheers.
Stuart.
 
There is no debate unless you are one to still believe the Earth is flat and only ~4,000yrs old no matter the science to the contrary.

But if you are the type who finds value for the perceived "insurance" then pony up and sleep better.
 
Last edited:
I think I would consider using a filter (of as yet undetermined type) if I was using an expensive scope on a sandy beach with wind. The rest of the time probably not. (both sand and salt could be a problem)

On the other hand, I have just had my right eye surgically corrected for Cataract, and my ophthalmologist said that was presumably worsened by UV influence. Now, since I was in my early 20ties (in other words about 30 years ago) I have owned and used a scope and always used my right eye when looking through - including many times when trying to find raptors and other birds in the direction of the sun. So why is my left eye in no need of surgery?

Niels
 
RJM said:
There is no debate unless you are one to still believe the Earth is flat and only ~4,000yrs old no matter the science to the contrary.

But if you are the type who finds value for the perceived "insurance" then pony up and sleep better.
Click to expand...

I am indeed "of" that type, so just about to "saddle my steed" and head for "pleasant dream land" !!
Cheers.
The Bishop of Ussher
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

mauriciolacruz
Kowa Genesis 44 Prominar XD... What filters to put?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Pepitogrillo
P
T
Old v's new?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Thrupenney Bit
T
R
switching to arca plates, anti-rotational pin, star test,
Replies
3
Views
597
rockwind
R
B
Choosing 8x32 vs 7x42 vs 8x25
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
Blastermaster
B
M
Zeiss victory pocket 8x25: occasional very strong flat green veiling?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Ted Y.
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top