Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Nikon D3200 suitable filter?


pstedders 2 5 United Kingdom
22 Jul 2012 10:34PM
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?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

miptog 9 3.5k 61 United Kingdom
22 Jul 2012 10:39PM
pstedders 2 5 United Kingdom
22 Jul 2012 10:43PM
Thanks for that link. Grin
23 Jul 2012 9:19PM
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 6 162 1 United Kingdom
12 Nov 2012 8:24AM
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
12 Nov 2012 8:59AM

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 9 6.4k 18 England
12 Nov 2012 9:24AM

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 6 4.9k
12 Nov 2012 9:55AM

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 6 162 1 United Kingdom
12 Nov 2012 11:31AM
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 6 6.6k 242 England
12 Nov 2012 12:02PM
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.
andybebbs 6 162 1 United Kingdom
12 Nov 2012 12:30PM
It adds protection to the lens itself surely and i was just using 20 as an example.
Jestertheclown 6 6.6k 242 England
12 Nov 2012 12:46PM

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 4 1.3k 203 United Kingdom
12 Nov 2012 1:15PM
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 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
12 Nov 2012 3:31PM

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.

.
Jestertheclown 6 6.6k 242 England
12 Nov 2012 4:44PM

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.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.