Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Nikon D3200 – suitable filter?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

pstedders
pstedders  2 United Kingdom
22 Jul 2012 - 10:34 PM

Apologies if this comes across as a stupid question:
I have decided, after many months consideration, to purchase a Nikon D3200.
This is the first DSLR that I would have bought, although I have had some experience of using them – and (obviously) am looking to take my photography a lot more seriously.
What factors do you think I should weigh up when looking for a suitable filter? and can anyone recommend a specific filter?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
22 Jul 2012 - 10:34 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

miptog
miptog  83532 forum posts United Kingdom61 Constructive Critique Points
22 Jul 2012 - 10:39 PM

Read this advice from Cambridge in Colour

pstedders
pstedders  2 United Kingdom
22 Jul 2012 - 10:43 PM

Thanks for that link. Grin

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62434 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
23 Jul 2012 - 9:19 PM

The only filter you might need at first is a circular pol.
A few suggest a front filter for protection - but these are only important in sand storms, sea spray and similar - conditions which a D3200 is not designed to work in.

andybebbs
andybebbs  6119 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
12 Nov 2012 - 8:24 AM

I would get yourself a uv filter just to protect the lens as £20 for a filter is a lot less than buying a new lens if you damage it.
Andy

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62434 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
12 Nov 2012 - 8:59 AM


Quote: I would get yourself a uv filter just to protect the lens as £20 for a filter is a lot less than buying a new lens if you damage it.
Andy

Are you sure a filter can prevent any damage to a lens?
A typical kit lens for a D3200 can cost as little as £60 - and a filter might (or might not) only protect the front element.
If the camera and lens get dropped or stolen a filter does almost nothing, whereas insurance (by way of an all risks schedule to a hose contents policy) for camera and lens can cost as little as £12.50.
The second query is why a UV? Ignoring that any filter sometimes degrades image quality UV work by preventing some short light wave length blue and purple light reaching the sensor, sometimes affecting colour accuracy depending on the cut off wavelength. The cut off wavelength is often 420 nm whereas many people can detect lower to about 390 nm.
Film has not been sensitive to UV for around 25 years, the optical cements used between groups of elements in lens stop UV, and digital sensors filter out UV - so there is no need to pay often extra for a UV.
A clear filter like a Nikon NC, Hoya Protection etc often costs less than a similar quality UV, and may have a place in a sand storm. A D3200 and kit lens is not designed to be sufficiently dust resistant to use safely in a sand storm.
Nikon stopped making UV filters about 8 years ago - because in a digital era they are out of date.
My advice is either go bare (most do) or get a clear front filter. If the shop you buy a camera from does not stock clear filters - walk away! They only sell boxes and do not provide good camera advice Sad

JJGEE
JJGEE  96223 forum posts England18 Constructive Critique Points
12 Nov 2012 - 9:24 AM


Quote: If the shop you buy a camera from does not stock clear filters - walk away! They only sell boxes and do not provide good camera advice

I do not understand your logic.

Why cannot a shop that does not sell clear filters not give good camera advice ?

Anyway, the lenses I buy come with a protector included, it is called a lens cap Wink
Easy to remove and replace as required !

thewilliam
12 Nov 2012 - 9:55 AM


Quote: I would get yourself a uv filter just to protect the lens as £20 for a filter is a lot less than buying a new lens if you damage it.
Andy
Are you sure a filter can prevent any damage to a lens?
A typical kit lens for a D3200 can cost as little as £60 - and a filter might (or might not) only protect the front element.
If the camera and lens get dropped or stolen a filter does almost nothing, whereas insurance (by way of an all risks schedule to a hose contents policy) for camera and lens can cost as little as £12.50.
The second query is why a UV? Ignoring that any filter sometimes degrades image quality UV work by preventing some short light wave length blue and purple light reaching the sensor, sometimes affecting colour accuracy depending on the cut off wavelength. The cut off wavelength is often 420 nm whereas many people can detect lower to about 390 nm.
Film has not been sensitive to UV for around 25 years, the optical cements used between groups of elements in lens stop UV, and digital sensors filter out UV - so there is no need to pay often extra for a UV.
A clear filter like a Nikon NC, Hoya Protection etc often costs less than a similar quality UV, and may have a place in a sand storm. A D3200 and kit lens is not designed to be sufficiently dust resistant to use safely in a sand storm.
Nikon stopped making UV filters about 8 years ago - because in a digital era they are out of date.
My advice is either go bare (most do) or get a clear front filter. If the shop you buy a camera from does not stock clear filters - walk away! They only sell boxes and do not provide good camera advice Sad

The decision of whether or not to use a UV filter is as contentious as the Nikon vs Canon debate. Len and I use the same make of camera so we just have to disagree about filters!

We might be able to afford to throw the 18-55 kit lens away (I have two of them) but many lenses cost well into 4 figures.

The D3200 is a good choice of camera!

andybebbs
andybebbs  6119 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
12 Nov 2012 - 11:31 AM

well everyone to there own i say and i put a uv filters on all my lenses and if it helps me keep the lens free from scratches then its worth £20 and i can`t afford to throw away any lens kit lens or not.
Andy

Jestertheclown
12 Nov 2012 - 12:02 PM

The UV filter on my lens cost me about £1.50 from Am*zon.

I can't see any difference in the results with it on or off and while I tend to agree with Len when he doubts that it offers a great deal of protection, for that price, I'll take what little it does offer!

I'd never consider paying twenty-odd quid for a UV filter.

Last Modified By Jestertheclown at 12 Nov 2012 - 12:02 PM
andybebbs
andybebbs  6119 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
12 Nov 2012 - 12:30 PM

It adds protection to the lens itself surely and i was just using £20 as an example.

Jestertheclown
12 Nov 2012 - 12:46 PM


Quote: i was just using £20 as an example.

That wasn't a dig at you bebbs.

People do pay twenty-odd quid for a UV filter, if the adverts that I've seen are to be believed.

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 41179 forum posts United Kingdom196 Constructive Critique Points
12 Nov 2012 - 1:15 PM

It's true, any filter however much it costs won't necessarily protect against dropping or serious impact. But it protects against scratching and fingermarks, and general accumulated dust. If you keep your front element clean, then better to clean a filter repeatedly then change it if you damage it, than have to replace the whole lens because the front elements coating is damaged.

If you need ultimate quality for any reason, you can just remove it temporarily, but still keep it fitted for walking around. A hood will help against casual bumps, but wide lens hoods are not deep and however much it cost, I don't want to just kiss off a lens.

You can get filters for well under £10 so it seems cheap to protect a lens that can cost four figures.

Nick

User_Removed
12 Nov 2012 - 3:31 PM


Quote: The UV filter on my lens cost me about £1.50 from Am*zon.

.

There you go, Jester. Even when you stick an asterisk into the name of that book retailer called after a South American river, it still gets a hyperlink attached to it. Clever stuff all this affiliate programme linking.

As far as the substantive discussion is concerned, I often do stick a clear filter on to a lens for protection - not so much to protect the lens from serious damage, which it won't - but because if the thing gets dusty, smeary or just downright rained-upon, I don't mind cleaning a cheap Chinese filter with a bit of spit and a snotty hankie, but I wouldn't do that to the front element of a lens.

I have kinda convinced myself that a protection filter does not significantly, on its own, reduce image quality - but I always take it off if I am using other "proper" filters as I am sure that sticking several layers of glass/plastic/resin in front of the lens can cause all sorts of problems.

.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 12 Nov 2012 - 3:33 PM
Jestertheclown
12 Nov 2012 - 4:44 PM


Quote: Clever stuff all this affiliate programme linking.

Not that clever LF.
I inserted that particular link; it's to the filter that I spent all that money on.
I think that you're right about image quality though, particularly at the level at which I operate.
Although I take the filter off for 'more important' shots, I can't see any difference either way in the results.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.