When buying a lens, an important factor is the purchase of a protective filter. Why is this needed? As the name comes up - to protect the lens, and these are not just empty words, but sensible advice to all amateurs and professionals to protect their favorite lenses.
Type of lens filter
Protective filters protect against:
- Finger sticking hands of the front lens of the lens is the most common oversight of any photographer. Even having not a little experience behind me, I still see both my and my photographers lenses flogged with their fingerprints. Like it or not, sometimes you want to remove the protective cover from the lens, but it’s not there, and you bury a bare lens instead.
- From mechanical stress. Sometimes, the front lens is hit by a photo bag, shoulder, witness's chest at a wedding when shooting a ransom, etc. It is also practically impossible to protect yourself from this. Actually, the motivator for this article was the fact that I broke my protective filter on the corner of the bar counter when reporting. And if it were not for the protective filter, then the front lens would not have been sweet. Therefore, filters really protect against mechanical effects.
- From dust, dirt, liquids, etc. You can safely fasten the filter and not worry about the cleanliness of the front lens.
Do you really need a protective filter?
Yes, unlike specific polarizing, stellar, gradient and color filters, which are needed only for a narrow kind of use, a protective filter is desirable always worn on the lens... For example, a protective filter is 100 times cheaper than a lens, and a good lens costs a couple of thousand dollars. it will be a pity to scratch. In the event that the lens has been subjected to strong impact, then scratches and other unpleasant trifles will remain on the filter, which can be easily, painlessly, and most importantly, very cheaply replaced with a new one. You can also wipe the filter with any cloth and also don’t worry that the first piece of cloth that comes across will not leave scratches on the lens.
After installing the filter, the front lens can do exactly the same close with a protective black cover - that is, the filter has two threads on one and the other side. One is screwed into the lens, and the other imitates the same thread as on the lens - for example, for wrapping a hood.
Personally, I use protective filters with an ultraviolet absorbing layer, thus killing two birds with one stone. Protective filters are usually marked as neutral, clear, which usually looks like an English lettering. UV filters are labeled as UV (0), UV (C), etc. Different manufacturers have different designations. It is best to take protective filters with high light transmittance of 95-97% and multilayer coating. You can still read about polarizing filter.
Conclusions:
For expensive lenses, the presence of at least a protective or ultraviolet filter is not a luxury, but irreplaceable thing, which will extend the lens service. And as everyone knows, cameras change, and lenses remain for almost a lifetime.
Do not forget to press the buttons ↓↓↓ social networks ↓↓↓ - it is important for me. Thank you for your attention. Arkady Shapoval.
Arkady, tell me, can a good enlightenment of a protective filter affect the image quality? I choose a filter on nikkor 35 1.8 g dx. Bought from China for $ 5, catches a lot of hares. I think, change to something better. Can you recommend something?
No enlightenment on the filter does not improve the image quality. But it can worsen. If the filter is of poor quality from an obscure manufacturer.
Hares to catch the lens is not because of the filter. And primarily because of the design of the lens itself, because of its optical design. There are lenses that are more resistant and there are less. You, apparently, from the second. But this does not mean that the lens is bad. It's just such a construction. Many high-quality and expensive glasses “catch hares” willingly. To some extent, the hood helps to minimize this. The hood is generally a good thing! It protects from hares, and from damage and scratches, and increases the contrast of the picture. Especially for lenses that love to "catch hares", such as high-aperture fifty-kopeck fixes. So the light filter is not to blame. And, nevertheless, I advise a hood.
In the same China there are suitable inexpensive filters ($ 10) KnightX UV MC HD - with such a green coating. I think they will not be inferior to the branded ones for twice or three times the price - there is a Minolta 49 mm, the same in appearance and quality in accuracy.
And how can we know whether they will yield as branded or not? If we do not know the purity, uniformity, degree of refraction and other characteristics of the glass from which they are made. Corporate filters are of high quality because the brand maintains its reputation and will not sell marriage under its own name. And unknown cheap Chinese, it’s like a lottery: any nonsense as a result comes across. Although occasionally lucky.
There is one, there is another, I can compare and draw a conclusion.
A good filter simply will not worsen the image (as if it does not exist), but improve, alas ...
Arkady, good afternoon! Tell me, will there be a difference in image quality if I use an expensive UV filter or, let's say, a middle-class filter? Thank you in advance for your reply!
The presence of a light filter (expensive or cheap) on the lens, the individual choice of the photographer. Ideally, given the choice, the filter should be matched to the lens. The same filter behaves differently on different lenses, for example: the relatively cheap and old Hoya HMC UV (0) on the sigma 17-70 and the nikon D200, just like the B + W UV 010 MRC on the Carl Zeiss Planar 50 /1.4 and Canon 5d mark - a slight increase in contrast while maintaining the sharpness of the image. The cheap Chinese rootless "polarizer" on the Nikkor 35 dx produces an excellent contrast picture, no worse than expensive filters and no more than what this lens can show. If your objective lenses are constantly in drops and dirt, then without a filter - nowhere.
Arkady, this question is for you: with active scrolling of the zoom, the lens sucks in dust that falls on the camera itself. Can a protective filter protect not only a lens, but also a device? Or is it the design of a specific lens and does it suck in dust not only from the side of the glass, but also possibly through the edges?
Thank you!
Kind time of the day, I'm an amateur, I’m buying my first camera in my life - this is a Nikon D5200 with an 18-200mm lens, tell me a normal universal filter, so that it protects and helps in all photos and helps in photos!
Arkady, hello! Please advise on the ultraviolet light filter there was a stain, as if dried syrup or wood sap was rubbed with Lenspen, but ring-shaped streaks are visible, can the filter be washed with water? or better? the pollution was such that even Lenspen did not slip on the glass. Could I have spoiled the Lenspen cleaning brush. Recam filter.
try heating instead of cooling - on an electric fireplace or a radiator - and turn the knobs
Vitaliy:
And if the UV-filter is stuck to a used lens and does not unscrew in any way, will your method help?
I have a filter ring made of thick metal, and the filter itself xs how old, the lens is also steel.
There are clever people who say in the characteristics of the filters that they protect the matrix from ultraviolet radiation. This information is for those who studied poorly at school and do not know that any glass (lens in the lens, window) does not pass ultraviolet light. Therefore, in addition to the front lens of the lens, the filter protects nothing more, and it is not necessary.
Not fairy tales. The length of the ultraviolet rays is different. If glass delayed the entire range, then violet would also weaken. Another thing is that ultraviolet is not afraid of the matrix, especially if photographing is not in the mountains. Such filters are needed for film cameras in which ultraviolet light illuminates the film, reducing the contrast of images. And now this is more marketing.
And by the way, glass does not completely absorb ultraviolet. Otherwise, museums would not be forbidden to photograph closed exhibits with a flash.
educational dialogue
The spectrum of ultraviolet radiation that passes through the glass does not cause a person to tan, for example, that is, it is no different from any other light. And museums can come up with a lot of things.
in fact, even if you don't open the windows in the car, the hand will light up quickly enough on one side, but not on the other
in general, I wanted to say that it delays, but not all ultraviolet
I want to buy MCUV ZOMEI for Sigma 17-50. What do you think? Maybe someone already has this one available. I buy for protection, well, enlightenment will not be superfluous. But I think the polarist should not buy me because I do not dabble in landscapes.
Thank you very much for the article. Yes, everything is true and very intelligibly you wrote, I also immediately bought a protective filter, but at that time I knew very little (and now it’s not enough, but there are already some ideas) about filters and about photo modeling.
Speaking of birds!
I used to like filters very much from Marumi! I tried many different ones. All are good in their own way. But when I accidentally tried one of the filters from Cokin, I was very impressed. Compared two filters of the same type red eye (enhancing red shades in the pictures) from Marumi and from Cokin. Both are good of course. But I liked the latter significantly more than Marumievsky. Compared in the first place, according to the results. Very much Cokin beautifully conveys not only the colors themselves, but also the midtones, which, when applied to the photograph, turn out to be even more in my opinion.
Greetings. Please comment filter: Hoya HD UV 77mm
And what to comment on it?
Kenko and Hoya have really good UV filters.
True, now there is little sense from UV filters for lenses - mainly the protective function for the objective lens remains.
From UV still Marumi are not bad.
Flama - junk, giving a bunch of hares from any light source.
Very disappointed with the Chinese filters ...
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/nefotograf/pochemu-ia-ne-sovetuiu-pokupat-deshevye-kitaiskie-svetofiltry-rasskaju-i-pokaju-na-svoem-opyte-5d459c20f0d4f400af0a8185
so why bother with chinese filters?
buy famous brands and you won’t be disappointed.
for half a penny, do not wait for quality.
Rise is generally a strange office: beautiful packaging and products, but functionality ... I ordered M42-Nikon adapters, neatly carved, powder-coated, color-coded ... but one was obviously carved on Monday after the Chinese New Year - I did not wear a camera. I ordered two metal hoods - they came of different depths ... Better to look for something budgetary from Kenko-Hoya-Tokina, the office is the same. But not with Ali.
“The chest of a wedding witness when filming the ransom” is better than the bride :)
Hello, Arkady, please tell me the brands of good protective filters. Or is it not so important? And do cheap filters have a big impact on the image? Thank you, sincerely Boris.
Unfortunately, I am not Arkady, but I recommend refraining from buying cheap and expensive UV filters.
Cheap ones can give color distortions, blur the picture or give hares into the frame (for example, you take a photo in the evening of a street with lanterns or a highway with cars and a cheap Flama or Fujimi or Chinese noname can give hares into the frame) and spoil the whole idea of the picture. I had this repeatedly, then I broke these filters out of anger, maybe I lost several valuable frames.
I recommend HOYA or KENKO. They are inexpensive and of predictable quality. There is no money for new ones - at flea markets their mountains are “like new” for a penny.
As for the expensive Rodenstock type, they will not replace a good lens, but they will not give magical quality, and there are many fakes among expensive filters, and used ones often come across cloudy and tired of life.
Yes, I support: you shouldn't take absolutely cheap ones for sure. And some not very cheap sometimes do not live up to expectations. For example, I really didn't like filters with Ali KFConcept. They make good adapters, but the enlightenment on their filters is of disgusting quality.
I highly recommend the KnightX UV HD MC series filters from aliexpress - they have really good clarity and quality in general. They are cheaper than many others due to the fact that the manufacturer uses the simplest packaging possible. The problem is that they make them from 49 mm in diameter. 40,5 do not, for example, to my great regret. As a result, I cannot find a normal filter under 40,5 - all the nonsense comes across.
The Tiynya filters (or whatever they are) were also not impressed - the coverage is inadequate.
More expensive than 2000 r (this order of magnitude the cost of a KnightX HD MC with a diameter of ~ 70 + mm) the filter does not make much sense to take.
So Flama and Fujimi need to be changed to KnightX MC. And change at once on 5 lenses. Plus one 52mm lens hood for the 50mm Nikon AF Nikkor 1mm 1.4: XNUMXD (made in China).
Ordered.
For 40.5 mm, I found a filter similar to KnightX UV MC HD quality - Green.L Slim MRC UV, sold in ibey. They are sent in plastic boxes a la "dorokho-bohato", that's why the price is biting. On the other hand, filters under $ 10 will be repaired in the same way, and optical trash is rare.
I especially did not like the 40.5 mm filter “KF Concept” (adapters and lenses are also produced under their own brand) - its vigorous blue coating is terribly yellow and glares. Tyania 40.5 mm filters also have no enlightenment - pale brownish-green - I did not notice any difference in comparison with ordinary window glass. Even the $ 3 KnightX UV MC is better, but not at 40.5mm.
Thank you very much, friends. I received the information, now I will think.
There is no need to think especially. If you live in the Russian Federation, then there are many inexpensive proposals for filters on Avito that are new.
I bought KnightX UV MC HD filters, as advised here in the comments. As a result, photographing in the open fifty dollars, I catch such artifacts from light sources. Without a filter, they are not. Now the question is - are all filters subject to this, or is it just that this brand should be bypassed from now on?
This re-reflection is the same I had on Flama.
I threw it out and use Hoya and Kenko ever since.
Thank. Such a miser pays twice)
For information: on kenko mc the same thing.
B + W and rodenstock haven't tried it, I don't see the point, since the same thing happens on more expensive filters https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/flare-from-3-uv-filters/
It's just physics.
What you have in the picture is still relatively good. On the net you can find many comparisons where much more expensive filters are involved, and exactly the same effect manifests itself there. So do not worry, but just know this feature, the fact is that neither kenko, nor hoya, nor more expensive brands will completely get rid of this.
So it is not necessary to buy new ones, you can also use them, they can be found for a penny in good condition.
So the conversation about the fact that brands are not particularly better (a hat like flama and all sorts of digicare from the assortment of Russian retailers do not even consider this - not filters, we are talking about inexpensive Chinese with multilayer enlightenment in the category of 15-30 dollars)
Well, xs I did not have such re-reflections as on Flama on Kenko / Hoya / Marumi.
I like to shoot at night and for me re-reflections are critical.
I have not used the Chinese and do not plan to. In that year came across an old Rodenstock, which bought used, but sealed in new condition. Maybe it was a fake, but as it turned out, it leads to yellowness, lathers (probably this was a soft effect) and weakens the contrast - in the end, I am still trying to put in order the pictures taken in August last year. You have to sit for a long time with each photo.
It's a good question to what extent anyone needs a filter.
I need it, mostly as a protective one. Because it happens that I shoot in bad weather conditions or, as an option, at rallies, where a thick-rimmed filter can protect against unwanted mechanical influences.
On photo_ru or similar sites, when discussing filters, subtle connoisseurs immediately climb out and begin to praise the filters of German brands. I do not want to condemn them - to each his own, I do not need this for sure, especially for that kind of money.
If you saw that it leads to yellowness and softness, then it was not easier to remove it, so that later you would not fiddle with processing? Or is it such a new kind of masochism?
Andrew,
I bought it right before shooting without testing it in operation.
Yes, a cant and this is a good lesson for me.
I thought that Rodenstock, and not window glass ... alas, it would be better to have a window glass.
The fact that it turns yellow, I realized too late, only when I saw an unusual glare from the sun in the viewfinder.
The preview of the crime pictures was not visible, but when I opened it on my computer I saw everything.
Here's an interesting, albeit old test:
https://alika2010.livejournal.com/82757.html
I mainly use Pro1D UV, Pro1 Digital UV, UV HD, Hoya HD3 (Nikon Arcrest) / HD nano UV, Kenko Zeta, and really love SkyLight 1B (slightly warms up the picture a little accentuating pink tones).
Oh, I'll bury myself, thanks.
The brand is completely normal. You just bought a very cheap filter with the simplest enlightenment. They also have more expensive UV MC HD, which practically do not give parasitic glare and are generally quite good.
Actually, that's exactly what he bought - mc uv hd :-)
Oh, well, yes, I didn't notice something at first. Well, if he did not do it, others will definitely not be better.
I think so.
On a rodenstock with b + w, and even more so on any kenko / marumi / hoya there will be + - the same thing, under the same conditions.
Try it yourself - there is a chance to be surprised.
Moreover, the diameter of the filter, some optical properties of the lens are not important here.
There will be no re-reflections due to normal light filters. Because of the shitty ones, yes.
For the sake of interest, I can post the names of the filters that are now wound on my lenses. And on which I have not seen reflections of light sources.
It's very easy to check.
Different filters are bought and you can evaluate everything yourself.
"Any" kenko and hoya just work without re-reflections.
But it is certainly better to be engaged in chatting, it is more exciting, and there will be like-minded theorists.
If anything, I have marumi / kenko / hoya.
B + W, there is no roadmap, but I don't see the point either.
There are multiple reflections on everyone, to a greater or lesser extent.
I gave a link above, where, among other things, the Zeiss filter was estimated for the cost of more than one hundred and fifty conventional greens, and even that one gave multiple reflections.
But of course, there will be storytellers who will paint that “I used a flame for three hundred rubles - I threw it away, so I bought a kenka for two rubles and everything became fine”, which you can only laugh at.
It is not necessary to buy in packs of filters / cameras / lenses, to be convinced of the opposite, it is enough to drive something like “uv filter flare” or “reflections” in the image search, and everything will fall into place.
example2
Kenko MC Skylight 1B + Tokina 28-70 / 2.6-2.8, Kodak Vision3 500T film
example3
Kenko MC Skylight 1B + Tokina 28-70 / 2.6-2.8, Kodak Vision3 500T film
“It is not necessary to buy in packs of filters / cameras / lenses, to be convinced of the opposite, it is enough to drive something like“ uv filter flare ”or“ reflections ”in the image search, and everything will fall into place.”
I have a different approach.
And I still have a lot of night photos both on film and on D4, D750, D700 in combination with different lenses and filters.
In my opinion, it can still depend on the lens. And glare does not usually occur at any angle.
What do these “examples” have to say?
About the fact that filters can be used inappropriately? About the fact that for a set of one and a half to two kilograms you can get a picture worse than from a mobile phone? Or that the appearance of glare depends not only on the quality of the filter?
Vitya,
This is the answer to your line:
“There are multiple reflections on everyone, to a greater or lesser extent.
But there will certainly be storytellers who will paint that “I used a flam for three hundred rubles - I threw it away, so I bought a kenka for two rubles and everything became fine”, which you can only laugh at. "
Sorry Arkady deleted another photo.
But I will throw it off one more time, and at the same time I will find others.
But don't be discouraged there and google “uv filter flare” or “reflections”, and maybe “everything will fall into place” for you.
"Or that the appearance of glare depends not only on the quality of the filter?"
And this is already changing shoes in flight, relative to the last phrase:
"There are multiple reflections on everyone, to a greater or lesser extent."
But I'll still throw in photos of different ones, with different filters and at different angles shot with different lenses.
And Vityusha will have to sprinkle ashes on his head and apologize.
Pokemon, what are your shoes? What are you babbling about?
There are reflections on all FILTERS, but NOT ON ALL PHOTOS, you need to chew it up, including why is it happening? It's sad.
By the way, they are even (to a small extent) present in your examples of frames “without re-reflections”, although maybe here the lens makes its own adjustments, not the filter. It is necessary to compare. All the same, there is no picture, soap, everything is tightened with a veil, I would ask why you dragged one and a half kilograms of glass and iron instead of a banal smartphone for such a plot, but I will not, some things are difficult to explain from the point of view of common sense)))
Seladir has a classic case with powerful point lighting, where no enlightenment can handle it.
But you throw, throw examples. Just choose carefully where you are lucky not to catch glare, and not like this time))
"There are reflections on all FILTERS, but NOT IN ALL PHOTOS"
On mine not - What am I doing wrong? I do not even know…
Or maybe what are you doing wrong? Or are you taking too many pictures for an iPhone?
"By the way, they are even (to a small extent) present in your examples of frames" without re-reflections ""
Where? Please draw with arrows, be so kind.
“I would ask why you dragged for such a plot”
Victor, well, what is one and a half kilos of weight. Victor, do you go to the grocery store? Probably you do not know, but bags of groceries for a week weigh differently and sometimes you carry 6-8 kilos of norms.
People with AK47 run, and it weighs 5 kilos with cartridges. Have you even taken such a real one in your hands or is it easier to shoot from a smartphone?
Yes, I’ll throw it, don’t be afraid. All will be.
Pokemon on yours - there is. You can see the glare from the flashlights in photo number 1 in the floor area in front of the car. I will not draw with arrows, open your eyes wider. True, they get lost among the soap and noise.
“And you drag 6-8 kilos and you’re normal” I carry bags, Pokemosh, sometimes I carry 10-15 kg, and I’m also normal. Why, when you are asked a question about the expediency of this or that action, do you try to translate the conversation into a person? Lack of self-esteem?)
I don’t suffer from dystrophy, but I don’t wear a DSLR where it is not needed. The breeders do not understand)))
Throw, throw, who's afraid of what? This will somehow affect the fact that ALL filters give re-reflections under certain (!) Conditions?)) No, it will not.
“You can see the glare from the flashlights in photo number 1 in the floor area in front of the car. I will not draw with arrows, open your eyes wider. True, they get lost among the soap and noise. "
This is complete nonsense compared to Flama:
Flama approx 1
Flama approx 2
The difference is visible without glasses.
"ALL filters in certain (!) Conditions give multiple reflections?))"
There is a washcloth on the stake, start again from the beginning.
In the Certain - what are these? How to evaluate them? Where will this glare go, what color it will be and how much to spoil the photo.
I'm not worried about these questions. Because I know what to buy to avoid the examples above.
example1 (which was deleted by Arkady)
Kenko MC Skylight 1B + Tokina 28-70 / 2.6-2.8, Kodak Vision3 500T film
Kenko Zeta Quint + Nikkor 35 / 2D, digital
Okay, empty.
I will look at Seladir when, on the advice of such Pokémon, he will buy filter after filter, more expensive and more expensive, and the flashlights will live as they lived in the photo.
Flama then go absolutely henya was, without any enlightenment, from window glass :)
“In the Certain - what are these? How to evaluate them? "
Can they somehow be estimated in numbers?
Too many variables - color, position of the light source relative to the lens, focal. Actually, even in the examples with Flama, the fact that not every light source has a glare suggests that it is useless to compare different cards, they will not say ANYTHING. It is necessary to put the camera on a tripod, took it off with one filter, twisted it, removed it with another filter, then with a third one, and so on. The only way.
Otherwise, this is not a comparison but crap in vegetable oil.
“I will look at Seladir when, on the advice of such Pokémon, he will buy filter after filter, more expensive and more expensive, and the flashlights will live as they lived in the photo.”
In fact, you still need a filter - and the more expensive (more valuable for the owner) the lens, the more you worry about it, sooner or later you will have to buy it anyway. You don't have to listen to me (or someone else) - you can do everything your own way. This experience, good or bad, does not matter.
Kenko MC Skylight 1A + Sigma 28 / 1.8 EX DG, digital
You just need to buy a new filter in China at the price of 15-25 dollars (with normal multilayer enlightenment) and calm down on that. If hares come across, exactly the same hares will be at E.
You can dig around Avito, in search of exactly the same, but ushatanny (with scuffs and scratches) "proprietary" filters, but the point is 0, IMHO.
"You can dig around Avito, in search of exactly the same, but crumpled (with scuffs and scratches)" proprietary "filters, but the point is 0"
Avito has many sealed or in very good condition.
Before Kovidny times, there were enough used sellers in good condition for Avito.
Perhaps some were dragged from Japanese auctions or flea markets.
The meaning of Avito (for me) is also that it was almost impossible to buy new Kenko Skylights, but in good condition or almost new it is easy and inexpensive.
Well, one more thing - new Polarics are expensive. They are much cheaper on Avito, and if there is a need to buy for a hobby or just play around, then this is a better option than ordering a noname cat in a bag from aliexpress (and wait a month or more under current conditions).
On cpl, yes, perhaps, you can save a lot.
But protective ... There, avito-delivery will block the benefit from savings. Although if you live in Moscow, this is easier.
Oh-oh, I really bought non-HD versions, tupanul: /
It's a shame that the difference in price is small. But HD-shki on Ali is only in the official store (where there are few sales), while in the offer that pops up from the top with a bunch of sales, there is no HD-version. I did not notice this nuance then.
I didn't buy HD yet - I painted it in the commentary next to it.
in photography books, I've come across tips to remove filters when shooting in the dark with artificial light sources. Or put up with such artifacts.
Curious.
Someone reads books, instead of buying heels of other filters on Avito, take the fifth point off the chair and go to shoot.
Books are also useful, so as not to tear off the fifth point every time in vain.
Mikhail has already said about the usefulness of the books, I can't buy anything on Avito, fortunately :), on all my lenses that need filters, they have been bought and installed for a long time (back in those years when I read books on photos), on there are no other filters, because they are not needed there, due to the recessed front lens or vice versa - the strong convexity of the same lens, which does not make it possible to wind a regular filter. And besides the photograph of everything that you see around, there are many things for which you have to tear the fifth point off the chair.
Flama is really Chinese, at least you should look at K&F.
I had very strong highlights when shooting in the evening with Cokin rectangular filters. Now there are two, either Kenko or Hoyi, I did not notice anything like that with them.
Good advice was given that the filter can be simply removed. And the resolution has not yet been compared by anyone for filters? :) if the glass is uneven, it will wash a little.
Maybe someone knows how to check the authenticity of glass? Japan - you can write on any thing from China.
Here you can see that it doesn't even smell like enlightenment. Take Chinese, but normal. The same KnightX UV MC HD have 16 coating layers, if my memory serves me right.
At that moment, the koba reached for the keyboard.
Where to find normal ones? China is everywhere. I bought Marumi MC filters in DNS and I'm not sure if it is made in Japan.
Certainly not different. Are there any proofs to the contrary? Not.
Probably not everything is so bad that is made in China. Radion, from my own experience, concluded: KnightX UV MC.
OOOOO0-ooo! Sorry Rodion! Made a mistake in the name!
So they are CHEAPER, very much.
KnightX UV MC received today. The package arrived pretty quickly. There is a noticeable lilac shade. This makes me happy. :-)
In fact, they have a simple two-layer enlightenment. But they are better than the unenlightened ones.
They also sent such a magnifying glass. No tests have been carried out yet.
Here is a photo with KnightX Close up +10 glass. Glass without antireflection.
KnightX UV MC filter, Nikon lens f = 1,4 D
Hello. I bought Gelik 81N in perfect condition. A filter without identification marks was wound on it (it can be seen erased), apparently of Soviet production. This is the first time I see one and cannot find a use for it. Who knows what kind of filter it is, please unsubscribe. I post a photo of the filter itself and a couple of photos without and with it.
Some kind of filter effects, variations on the theme of stars for point light sources. Take a picture of the city at night with lanterns or an LED garland on it. If the effect is not visible, close the diaphragm.
01
02 without filter
What is it, photos are added or not
03 with filter