Nikon 80-200 F2.8: Do I need a filter for protection?

[anubis404]

I just bought the Nikon 80-200 F2.8 AF-D mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen, however I have not purchased any kind of protection for it. I am planning on buying the hood, however I'm debating if I should invest in a good UV filter. From what I have heard, Canon's L glass's front element is purely protective, and damage can be repaired for ~$100. Is this true with the 80-200? Or will the repair cost be much more significant should something unfortunate happen to the front element?

 

[CW Jones]

All my lenses have just clear ones on the front to protect them... its easier to replace a $20 filter than a $200+ lens...

 

[TUX424]

i just use the hood and call it good im not about to put a $20 junky filter that is going to downgrade my image quality. Thats just me.
Maybe if you invest is high quality filter the effect on IQ will be lighter.

 

[anubis404]

There is no way in hell I'd put a $20 filter in front of a $700+ lens. I just want to know if a filter is worth spending $70-100 on when the repair costs would be the same.

 

[zemlin]

Just the hood for me. I put a bit of gaff tape around the rim and on the bottom of the hood to minimize the chances of scratching it. It's a great lens. Not perfect, but it has a lot of strengths. It's certainly helped me get a lot of nice shots. I got mine back in October and I'm really looking forward to getting out in the warmer weather with this thing.

 

[Montana]

Just hoods for me too. Only filters I use are Circular polarizers. Only time I mount a protective filter is around water spray and heavy dust. Otherwise, no way in hell I'd mount another piece of glass on fine optics.

 

[dhilberg]

Yea same here, I just use my hood for my lenses, including my Nikkor 80-200.

 

[Overread]

I agree with Montana - if your not in a situation where material or liquids are likly to hit the front element on a regular basis then a protection filter is not really worth investing in.
Also if your going for protection a good quality clear glass filter is a cheaper protection than a good UV (and since cameras have UV protection anyway your not really needing the UV aspct so why pay for it)

 

[JerryPH]

There is no way in hell I'd put a $20 filter in front of a $700+ lens. I just want to know if a filter is worth spending $70-100 on when the repair costs would be the same.

Trust me... a front element is a lot more than 70-100 bucks (it is closer to $400). Every one of my lenses (except my fisheye) has protective UV filters on them, I think it is foolish to have a thousand dollar lens and NOT have one.

C'mon people, this should not even be a question... if you don't care about your equipment, don't put anything. Me, I will spend the $125-150 and make sure it is well protected without any photo degradation.

 

[Mike_E]

Boys and girls, today's lesson is taken from Neil of planetneil fame. There will be a test after you've read the page..

http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/2007/05/31/filters/

begin

 

[JerryPH]

Boys and girls...

 

[Garbz]

The front element is curved, that should be your answer to question 1.

As for the protector, the hood does not stop a big gob of corrosive salt water being splashed up into the lens. Doesn't stop sand, don't stop a coffee spill. Heck in my experience it doesn't even stop finger prints from ending up on the front element. Actually Mike_E's post seems to show it doesn't stop table corners or other nasties either.

There are people here who will swear black and blue against filters, but personally if for $100 and no drop in image quality I can put an excellent quality filter on my lens to protect my investment (not a cheapie stay away from those), then I will gladly cough up the money.

Now the other day I saw someone shooting with a Canon 85mm f/1.2 with a Hoya standard UV on it and it was all I could do not to slap him.

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

Yes it's worth the $70-$80 cost for a good UV filter I use them on all my lenses.

 

[Captain IK]

All my lenses have good quality filters on them.
When I buy a new lens, it doesn't leave the store without a filter.

 

[dhilberg]

I'm actually going to pick up a UV filter for this lens for protection. As I've been shooting with it more, I've become concerned that the exposed threads the focusing elements move on may get gummed up in the future from dust and other grime. Plus, since this is my most expensive lens, it's probably a good idea overall.

I have a UV filter on my Nikkor 18-200 that I completely forgot was even there, lol. I haven't used it much lately.