• 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.

Protect the front lens with a filter? (1 Viewer)

The Kingfisher said:
Just two simple questions..

Do you use an UV-filter or something else to protect the front lens of your scope? Why..or why not?


/JP
I used a Hoya Pro series filter on my Swarovski 65 HD with a x30w ( to protect the front OG when sea watching etc ) and found that it had a negative effect with relation to depth of field.....certainly I noticed a slight difference. A senior employee of a well known German optics company advised me that any additional glass in front of the optic should have the same properties and performance(focal length/wavelength) in order to not affect the viewing of the telescope or binocular. I no longer use a filter.
 
scope filters

on my kowa 663 i use a kenko [same company as hoya ] pro 1 protector m/c - d - uv filter [ i fitted with a pinch type lens cap ] the filter appears to have no negative effect that i can detect and is used solely for protection i.e. impact , salt spray, scuffing, and to reduce lens cleaning . it is edge blackend, only 1mm thick and optimised for digital use [reflections etc] with multi coatings on both glass surfaces, it is totaly clear not like skylight 1a 1b etc. and i would not be without it for the peace of mind that it brings. also i have no nagging doubts about loss of image while i am using it . hope this helps . p s i got mine from a well known internet auction site. for a 72mm filter from hong kong £8.40 plus £7.00 shipping . to the uk [took just 5 days . ] kind regards stuart.
 
A bk7 blank might be useable, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as a UV filter.

I even take my Hoya UV filt *off* my D70's main lens when shooting astro shots at night as it causes reflections, but I *do* use a small 1.25" dia BK7 blank to protect my D70 sensor when prime focus digiscoping (no eyepiece, just scope onto DSLR body).

You win some you lose some. Personally, my extended dew filter / lens hood on my scope offers enough protection.
 
Brenty said:
What size filter did you order? I think I will get one for my ES80.
I bought the Hama skylight filter 82mm for my ES80 from 7Dayshop, £14.99, seems O.K.http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=5967
Also the Kood Lens cap ( snap on type ) for £0.79, a bargain. http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=100801

Don't know which one Brenty bought though, probably the Kood, http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=100790
 
No filter. The main hazard I foresee for the objective lens of my scope is my own fingers, so I always extend the hood when using the scope (Swaro ATS 65 HD). This is a carryover from my standard practice with cameras. I only use a filter if I specifically need a filter for some effect or color correction. When I was doing 4x5 landscape photography, I used gelatin filters. I don't know if those are still available. We're talking 25 years ago.
 
The Kingfisher said:
Just two simple questions..

Do you use an UV-filter or something else to protect the front lens of your scope? Why..or why not?


/JP

Right. I will buy a $2500 spotting scope to get the best possible image, and then i will put a $3 filter in front of it.
 
Last edited:
scope filters

with reference to my previous posting i spent a great deal of time researching filters and their effects on image. i would not put just any old filter in front a £700.00 outfit. the one i chose suits my outfit very well and i would not be without it . kowa themselves use skylight filters marketed as [ protection filters]. no way would i risk damage to an expensive fluorite lens .look upon it as insurance and choose your filters with care . regards stuart .
 
Curtis Croulet said:
No filter. The main hazard I foresee for the objective lens of my scope is my own fingers, so I always extend the hood when using the scope (Swaro ATS 65 HD). This is a carryover from my standard practice with cameras. I only use a filter if I specifically need a filter for some effect or color correction. When I was doing 4x5 landscape photography, I used gelatin filters. I don't know if those are still available. We're talking 25 years ago.

Nowadays it's called The Cokin System
 
Luca said:
Right. I will buy a $2500 spotting scope to get the best possible image, and then i will put a $3 filter in front of it.

Yes, that´s one reason why I don´t use a filter today. I´m not worried to get an unsharp image with a filter though. Instead it´s reflections when birding in backlight I´m worried about. My experience with filters on camera objectives is positive. When it comes to sharpness, the difference with or without a filter on an objective is marginal I think.

Where do you bye $3 filters? Here in Sweden a filter from B&W UV MRC (82mm) would cost about $140..


/Jonas
 
The Kingfisher said:
Yes, that´s one reason why I don´t use a filter today. I´m not worried to get an unsharp image with a filter though. Instead it´s reflections when birding in backlight I´m worried about. My experience with filters on camera objectives is positive. When it comes to sharpness, the difference with or without a filter on an objective is marginal I think.

Where do you bye $3 filters? Here in Sweden a filter from B&W UV MRC (82mm) would cost about $140..


/Jonas
We buy them at www.7dayshop.com don,t know if they deliver outside UK.
 
Let me make myself clear. If i pay a bucket of money to get the best, and the most realistic and the most natural view possible, well brother, ain't no way in hell i'm gonna ruin that image with any filter, at any price.
 
I think that using lens hood, in its extended position is adequate protection. Now if i used my 'scope in the rain, or in a dusty environement, requiring frequent cleaning, I might have a different response.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :egghead:
 
Would never have thought have putting a filter on a scope!!!.There was a thread on WPF re filters on cam lenses,and the general opinion was that they were not needed.One has a lens cap/lens hood to protect the lens in general use.
 
Luca said:
Let me make myself clear. If i pay a bucket of money to get the best, and the most realistic and the most natural view possible, well brother, ain't no way in hell i'm gonna ruin that image with any filter, at any price.
Luca,no one is forcing you to put anything on your scope [what is yours].Whatever price it cost doesn,t really matter ,it is there to protect the lens from getting messed up,the choice is yours. :hippy:
 
Here I go eating my words, done a test today with and without the UV lens.There is a loss of detail and light with the lens on.Needless to say it is now back in its holder.Although the loss is small its enough to make a difference.I could read a number plate on a car much easier with out the lens on.
 
Henry B said:
Here I go eating my words, done a test today with and without the UV lens.There is a loss of detail and light with the lens on.Needless to say it is now back in its holder.Although the loss is small its enough to make a difference.I could read a number plate on a car much easier with out the lens on.
My compliments! Most people never let facts get in the way of their opinions.

John
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top