• 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.

Advice on using a clear filter to protect scope objective lens please (1 Viewer)

S

Suffolk naturalist

Active member
I recently bought a used Kowa 823, mainly to give digiscoping a try, and have been very impressed with its performance, particularly with the latest versions of the Kowa 21x and 32x eyepieces. It's a huge improvement over my previous Kowa 613 (which isn't bad in its own right!).

However, worried about getting muck or scratches on that expensive front element I bought a Hoya HMC UV filter to protect it. I put the filter on and did a few test shots in my garden and was suprised to see a weird fuzzy fringing on my bird images. At first I thought it was bad technique or that I had damaged the scope or an eyepiece somehow. But after a process of elimination I found it was the filter. Without the filter the images are fine.

I just wondered whether anyone else had experienced this problem. Have I just got a bad filter, is it something to do with the interaction of scope and filter or shouldn't I be using one at all?

Any advice would be much appreciated...

Cheers

Malc
 
I use a Hoya Pro1D UV to my Nikon ED50A. A couple of days ago I discovered a massive indent in the filter ring and I had no idea when that could have happened.
Anyway, the finding confirmed that using a filter was some good thinking.

But when I mentioned it here on BF, I was dissuaded from doing so, because the image quality would deteriorate at least when digiscoping (believe it was RJM who wrote that).

I'm a bit surprised to read that the filter use actually does impair the image quality, like he said. Perhaps you could borrow another top-notch filter and try it.
If the bad results remain, your scope simply cannot be used with a filter.

//L
 
Thanks for the reply and suggestion. It did cross my mind that perhaps the glass hadn't been fitted into the filter frame properly and had got slightly distorted, thus causing the distortion. If I look carefully I can even see the effect with the naked eye just by looking through the scope, but it's really obvious on the images.

I'd be interested in anyone else's experiences - do most folk use a filter to protect the scope's front element?
 
There’ve been 4 or 5 “protective filter” threads on BF over the years, the consensus being that even expensive filters can degrade the image a little & that cheap ones will degrade it a lot. IIRC, no objective testing data is cited in any of these threads, just anecdotes. I stopped using a filter some years ago when I dropped the scope & the filter shattered, scarring the objective lens which had to be replaced as a result (the scope was in a heavy padded case & if it hadn’t been for the flying sherds of filter glass everything would probably have been alright).
 
fugl said:
I stopped using a filter some years ago when I dropped the scope & the filter shattered, scarring the objective lens which had to be replaced as a result (the scope was in a heavy padded case & if it hadn’t been for the flying sherds of filter glass everything would probably have been alright).
Click to expand...

:eek!:
 
fugl said:
There’ve been 4 or 5 “protective filter” threads on BF over the years, the consensus being that even expensive filters can degrade the image a little & that cheap ones will degrade it a lot. IIRC, no objective testing data is cited in any of these threads, just anecdotes. I stopped using a filter some years ago when I dropped the scope & the filter shattered, scarring the objective lens which had to be replaced as a result (the scope was in a heavy padded case & if it hadn’t been for the flying sherds of filter glass everything would probably have been alright).
Click to expand...

I used UV filters on all my camera lenses and didn't notice any degradation in image quality at all. Is spotting scope more sensitive in this regard?
 
I don’t know, I was just reporting what I took to be the consensus so far. As I’ve said, I’m not aware of any objective data on this subject.
 
When I upgraded to a Leica APO77 from a cheaper scope I decided to get a filter for it as it was expensive and worth protecting. I got a good (well expensive) filter and was amazed at the way it degraded the image, it was soon removed and I've never bothered with one since.
 
Thanks for the replies - sorry I should have checked for previous posts.

Attached is a composite image that shows the difference in quality with and without the filter. The degree to which the image is degraded is pretty surprising, given that this is a top quality filter from a good maker.

The two images have been cropped from the central part of the image and re-sized but are otherwise unedited. The originals were successive raw files and the subject was a TV aerial a couple of houses away.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    102 KB · Views: 302
postcardcv said:
When I upgraded to a Leica APO77 from a cheaper scope I decided to get a filter for it as it was expensive and worth protecting. I got a good (well expensive) filter and was amazed at the way it degraded the image, it was soon removed and I've never bothered with one since.
Click to expand...

I use protective filters quite a lot on my scopes, and even in a side by side comparison (we've got three Nikon EDIIIs and one EDII in the family) I can't really see much difference. The differences between the scopes are bigger than the difference the filter makes - one is a true cherry, two are alright and one isn't really *that* good at all.

However, I also found some filters - even expensive ones from "good" manufacturers such as Hoya - degrade the optical quality. At present I use neutral protective filters from Canon and Nikon. No complaints at all, I prefer them over UV filters nowadays. With the Leica Apo 77 I used in the 90s I used an expensive Leica UV filter. That was also OK. It also saved me a lot of money, my Leica was one of the few that didn't suffer from a destroyed objective lens after extensive seawatching at the coast ...

Hermann
 
Malcolm Farrow said:
Thanks for the replies - sorry I should have checked for previous posts.

Attached is a composite image that shows the difference in quality with and without the filter. The degree to which the image is degraded is pretty surprising, given that this is a top quality filter from a good maker.

The two images have been cropped from the central part of the image and re-sized but are otherwise unedited. The originals were successive raw files and the subject was a TV aerial a couple of houses away.
Click to expand...

That’s an amazing difference. The filter must be defective in some way. If I were you, I’d take it back to the retailer for money-back or replacement.
 
Filters are touted as protecting the objective lens, but have not been worth the bother in my experience.
It is easy to get fogging between the filter and the objective lens, which might account for the softness in
Malcolm Farrows rather shocking images.
A soft rubber hood/sunshade is a better protection for the front of the scope imho, although that is difficult to reconcile with a stay on case without surgery.
 
etudiant said:
It is easy to get fogging between the filter and the objective lens, which might account for the softness in
Malcolm Farrows rather shocking images.
Click to expand...

I've been using filters on a regular basis for close on 20 years now, and I never had any fogging between the filter and the objective lens. And I do go out birding in the rain quite regularly.

etudiant said:
A soft rubber hood/sunshade is a better protection for the front of the scope imho, although that is difficult to reconcile with a stay on case without surgery.
Click to expand...

Most scopes have some sort of sunshade nowaday, but in really bad conditions I tend to use one that's quite a bit longer than the one of the scope to keep the water or seaspray of the lens.

Hermann
 
Interesting.
You must have better filters or better technique.
I had trouble with fogging/condensation on my ED50 scope using a Hoya HMC UV(0) filter, badly so in cool and wet conditions on Cape Clear, so it now has a screw on soft rubber sun shade instead.
That scope has no sunshade, sacrificed to save weight.
 
etudiant said:
Filters are touted as protecting the objective lens, but have not been worth the bother in my experience.
It is easy to get fogging between the filter and the objective lens, which might account for the softness in
Malcolm Farrows rather shocking images.
A soft rubber hood/sunshade is a better protection for the front of the scope imho, although that is difficult to reconcile with a stay on case without surgery.
Click to expand...

It isn't caused by condensation or fogging. The filter is brand new and was only fitted briefly to scope in dry, sunny, warm weather. Whatever caused it, it's nothing to do with moisture or other external environmental factors.

I'll repeat the test just in case vibration or something similar caused the problem, it's the only other thing I can think of.

Thanks for the interesting replies.
 
Just a quick postscript to add that I re-did the test with exactly the same result. Clearly the filter is causing the problem.

Hard to believe that a Hoya HMC filter could do this and I can only hope it's a rogue filter that got through QC. Otherwise you wonder what the implications could be for photography where the use of protection filters is even more common. Could be some people out there that have ditched a 'bad' lens when it was just a filter causing the problems. Makes you think...
 
A standard camera lens is much less demading on filter glass quality since they tend to be used at much lower effective magnifications. Even the largest 600mm telephoto lens tops out at ~30x, which is on the low end of typical digiscoping magnifications.

Anyway, your experience is just another validation of what many others here have discovered when trying to digiscope with a protection filter on the scope. Too bad you never picked up on the old threads as you would have saved yourself some tuition.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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

Craig H
Spotting Scopes - Personal needs and perceptions vs optical ability
Replies
6
Views
2K
Craig H
Craig H
N
New scope for my 40th birthday.. suggestions?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Hermann
Hermann
P
Filter thread dent / repair tool
Replies
6
Views
650
Peregrine Took
P
L
Mini review of the Opticron MM4 60
Replies
7
Views
5K
MMcD
MMcD
B
Spotting scope for casual astronomy, or something else?
Replies
17
Views
2K
wllmspd
W

Users who are viewing this thread

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