What is the best way to handle this crack on Nikon 70-300mm?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Wondering what I should do about this crack in my Nikon 70-300mm lens. It seems to work the same and has no negative impact on photos but I’d still like it fixed or at the least suggestion to help prevent it from getting worse.
nikon
edited Oct 3 at 19:59
Hueco
8,68632143
asked Oct 3 at 19:12
Melissa
362
New contributor
Melissa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Wondering what I should do about this crack in my Nikon 70-300mm lens. It seems to work the same and has no negative impact on photos but I’d still like it fixed or at the least suggestion to help prevent it from getting worse.
nikon
edited Oct 3 at 19:59
Hueco
8,68632143
asked Oct 3 at 19:12
Melissa
362
New contributor
Melissa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
9
Are you sure that's not a filter on the front of the lens?
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:15
3
Can you take & upload a picture of the side of the lens? Is there printing/embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front of the lens? That would show it's probably a filter.
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:32
3
You’re so right!!! It is the filter and I’m ordering a new one now!!! Thank you all so much for your help! I appreciate it so muchâ£ï¸Â
– Melissa
Oct 3 at 20:05
5
So, yes, as suspected, with the updated picture - you have a RocketFish RF-CP67 circular polarizer filter on there (67 probably indicates a 67mm diameter thread ring). Remove it, and replace it or don't - I would recommend not, except for certain situations where you know you want to use one. If you really didn't know it was there, then I'd guess you don't really know yet what you would use one for, and so can probably do without, and probably even get better more consistent results in the process.
– twalberg
Oct 3 at 20:06
9
no reason to have a polarizer permanently attached to your lens. try using the lens for a while without the filter. you should notice a performance increase, especially in low light.
– xiota
Oct 3 at 21:33
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Wondering what I should do about this crack in my Nikon 70-300mm lens. It seems to work the same and has no negative impact on photos but I’d still like it fixed or at the least suggestion to help prevent it from getting worse.
nikon
edited Oct 3 at 19:59
Hueco
8,68632143
asked Oct 3 at 19:12
Melissa
362
New contributor
Melissa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Wondering what I should do about this crack in my Nikon 70-300mm lens. It seems to work the same and has no negative impact on photos but I’d still like it fixed or at the least suggestion to help prevent it from getting worse.
nikon
nikon
edited Oct 3 at 19:59
Hueco
8,68632143
asked Oct 3 at 19:12
Melissa
362
New contributor
Melissa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Oct 3 at 19:59
Hueco
8,68632143
asked Oct 3 at 19:12
Melissa
362
New contributor
Melissa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Oct 3 at 19:59
Hueco
8,68632143
edited Oct 3 at 19:59
Hueco
8,68632143
edited Oct 3 at 19:59
Hueco
8,68632143
8,68632143
asked Oct 3 at 19:12
Melissa
362
New contributor
Melissa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Oct 3 at 19:12
Melissa
362
asked Oct 3 at 19:12
Melissa
362
362
New contributor
Melissa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Melissa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Melissa is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
9
Are you sure that's not a filter on the front of the lens?
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:15
3
Can you take & upload a picture of the side of the lens? Is there printing/embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front of the lens? That would show it's probably a filter.
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:32
3
You’re so right!!! It is the filter and I’m ordering a new one now!!! Thank you all so much for your help! I appreciate it so muchâ£ï¸Â
– Melissa
Oct 3 at 20:05
5
So, yes, as suspected, with the updated picture - you have a RocketFish RF-CP67 circular polarizer filter on there (67 probably indicates a 67mm diameter thread ring). Remove it, and replace it or don't - I would recommend not, except for certain situations where you know you want to use one. If you really didn't know it was there, then I'd guess you don't really know yet what you would use one for, and so can probably do without, and probably even get better more consistent results in the process.
– twalberg
Oct 3 at 20:06
9
no reason to have a polarizer permanently attached to your lens. try using the lens for a while without the filter. you should notice a performance increase, especially in low light.
– xiota
Oct 3 at 21:33
 |Â
show 5 more comments
9
Are you sure that's not a filter on the front of the lens?
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:15
3
Can you take & upload a picture of the side of the lens? Is there printing/embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front of the lens? That would show it's probably a filter.
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:32
3
You’re so right!!! It is the filter and I’m ordering a new one now!!! Thank you all so much for your help! I appreciate it so muchâ£ï¸Â
– Melissa
Oct 3 at 20:05
5
So, yes, as suspected, with the updated picture - you have a RocketFish RF-CP67 circular polarizer filter on there (67 probably indicates a 67mm diameter thread ring). Remove it, and replace it or don't - I would recommend not, except for certain situations where you know you want to use one. If you really didn't know it was there, then I'd guess you don't really know yet what you would use one for, and so can probably do without, and probably even get better more consistent results in the process.
– twalberg
Oct 3 at 20:06
9
no reason to have a polarizer permanently attached to your lens. try using the lens for a while without the filter. you should notice a performance increase, especially in low light.
– xiota
Oct 3 at 21:33
9
9
Are you sure that's not a filter on the front of the lens?
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:15
Are you sure that's not a filter on the front of the lens?
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:15
3
3
Can you take & upload a picture of the side of the lens? Is there printing/embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front of the lens? That would show it's probably a filter.
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:32
Can you take & upload a picture of the side of the lens? Is there printing/embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front of the lens? That would show it's probably a filter.
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:32
3
3
You’re so right!!! It is the filter and I’m ordering a new one now!!! Thank you all so much for your help! I appreciate it so muchâ£ï¸Â
– Melissa
Oct 3 at 20:05
You’re so right!!! It is the filter and I’m ordering a new one now!!! Thank you all so much for your help! I appreciate it so muchâ£ï¸Â
– Melissa
Oct 3 at 20:05
5
5
So, yes, as suspected, with the updated picture - you have a RocketFish RF-CP67 circular polarizer filter on there (67 probably indicates a 67mm diameter thread ring). Remove it, and replace it or don't - I would recommend not, except for certain situations where you know you want to use one. If you really didn't know it was there, then I'd guess you don't really know yet what you would use one for, and so can probably do without, and probably even get better more consistent results in the process.
– twalberg
Oct 3 at 20:06
So, yes, as suspected, with the updated picture - you have a RocketFish RF-CP67 circular polarizer filter on there (67 probably indicates a 67mm diameter thread ring). Remove it, and replace it or don't - I would recommend not, except for certain situations where you know you want to use one. If you really didn't know it was there, then I'd guess you don't really know yet what you would use one for, and so can probably do without, and probably even get better more consistent results in the process.
– twalberg
Oct 3 at 20:06
9
9
no reason to have a polarizer permanently attached to your lens. try using the lens for a while without the filter. you should notice a performance increase, especially in low light.
– xiota
Oct 3 at 21:33
no reason to have a polarizer permanently attached to your lens. try using the lens for a while without the filter. you should notice a performance increase, especially in low light.
– xiota
Oct 3 at 21:33
 |Â
show 5 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
It's probably a filter. If there is printing or embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front, that would indicate a filter is screwed on.
Remove the filter by unscrewing it. If it doesn't seem to want to come off, see: How do I get a stuck screw filter off of my lens?
After comments, the filter is a Rocketfish RF-CP67 Circular-Polarising 67mm diameter filter which unscrews using the knurled section highlighted. The section forward of that with the RocketFish logo will turn infinitely - which is how it varies the polarising layer.
edited Oct 3 at 22:18
RedGrittyBrick
2,3031017
answered Oct 3 at 19:35
scottbb
17.8k75287
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I am sure that is a filter, not the lens. Remove the filter and problem solved.
You probably need to buy a new filter.
answered Oct 3 at 19:33
Rafael
12.5k11838
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As previously stated, it looks like the filter is damaged, not the lense. But, of course, take the filter off and inspect the lens for damage too. That being said, I was a professional photographer for years and initially, as a budding amateur, I always had a Sky or UV filter on all my lenses to protect that precious glass from damage. Certainly a Sky or UV filter has some benefit in filtering out certain wavelengths of light that you may find unattractive in your photographs. But, unless you keep them sparkling clean, they will impart some issues in your shots. So, I took any filters off my lenses unless I had a photographic reason to add them, was extra careful in protecting my lenses and used metal sunshades when possible to minimize stray light and put something in front of my glass that would help protect, yet not interfere with the quality of my photos.
After working in a camera store I learned that the sales people always recommended a protective filter on any lense they sold. Why? So they could make additional money on the sale, back then (80’s) a Sky A1 filter cost you about $20, cost to the camera store was $2 or 3, nice profit margin. I won’t tell you what they made on batteries. 😳 Keep your lens clean and use a good shade to help keep it out of harms way.
answered Oct 3 at 20:41
Tony
1793
4
A Sky/UV filter only has value if you're shooting film. Film is more sensitive to UV than it is to visible light, so adding a UV filter on top of the natural UV filtering of the lens makes sense. Digital sensors are the other way around, so adding a UV filter just adds opportunities for lens flare, haze, and other problems.
– Mark
Oct 4 at 1:05
Melissa: Be aware that some filters do block a fair amount of light getting to your sensor/film. That polarizing filter will cost you about 2 f-stops of light. In turn may push you to slower shutter speeds to compensate for the lose of light. May be an issue depending on what/how your are photographing your subject.
– Tony
Oct 4 at 12:35
I suspect UV and IR can wreak total havoc especially on digital if they manage to "overpower" the camera-internal filters - it is considered one of the possible reasons for purple fringing. Both CCD and CMOS sensors are actually sensitive as heck to these wavelengths - hence the built-in filters. However, common UV filter designs from the film era are unlikely to help substantially here. So the kind of radiation a UV filter filters on digital setups is particle radiation: doorknobs, stray tools and hardware, projectiles, abrasive dirt....
– rackandboneman
yesterday
And btw, the filter shown looks like it either has very low quality coating, or has been allowed to gather a copious amount of oil/smoke/haze/.... both, unlike dust specks, will be bad for your image... a polarizer should look very translucent or very dark when photographed...
– rackandboneman
yesterday
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
It's probably a filter. If there is printing or embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front, that would indicate a filter is screwed on.
Remove the filter by unscrewing it. If it doesn't seem to want to come off, see: How do I get a stuck screw filter off of my lens?
After comments, the filter is a Rocketfish RF-CP67 Circular-Polarising 67mm diameter filter which unscrews using the knurled section highlighted. The section forward of that with the RocketFish logo will turn infinitely - which is how it varies the polarising layer.
edited Oct 3 at 22:18
RedGrittyBrick
2,3031017
answered Oct 3 at 19:35
scottbb
17.8k75287
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
It's probably a filter. If there is printing or embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front, that would indicate a filter is screwed on.
Remove the filter by unscrewing it. If it doesn't seem to want to come off, see: How do I get a stuck screw filter off of my lens?
After comments, the filter is a Rocketfish RF-CP67 Circular-Polarising 67mm diameter filter which unscrews using the knurled section highlighted. The section forward of that with the RocketFish logo will turn infinitely - which is how it varies the polarising layer.
edited Oct 3 at 22:18
RedGrittyBrick
2,3031017
answered Oct 3 at 19:35
scottbb
17.8k75287
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
It's probably a filter. If there is printing or embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front, that would indicate a filter is screwed on.
Remove the filter by unscrewing it. If it doesn't seem to want to come off, see: How do I get a stuck screw filter off of my lens?
After comments, the filter is a Rocketfish RF-CP67 Circular-Polarising 67mm diameter filter which unscrews using the knurled section highlighted. The section forward of that with the RocketFish logo will turn infinitely - which is how it varies the polarising layer.
edited Oct 3 at 22:18
RedGrittyBrick
2,3031017
answered Oct 3 at 19:35
scottbb
17.8k75287
It's probably a filter. If there is printing or embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front, that would indicate a filter is screwed on.
Remove the filter by unscrewing it. If it doesn't seem to want to come off, see: How do I get a stuck screw filter off of my lens?
After comments, the filter is a Rocketfish RF-CP67 Circular-Polarising 67mm diameter filter which unscrews using the knurled section highlighted. The section forward of that with the RocketFish logo will turn infinitely - which is how it varies the polarising layer.
edited Oct 3 at 22:18
RedGrittyBrick
2,3031017
answered Oct 3 at 19:35
scottbb
17.8k75287
edited Oct 3 at 22:18
RedGrittyBrick
2,3031017
edited Oct 3 at 22:18
RedGrittyBrick
2,3031017
edited Oct 3 at 22:18
RedGrittyBrick
2,3031017
2,3031017
answered Oct 3 at 19:35
scottbb
17.8k75287
answered Oct 3 at 19:35
scottbb
17.8k75287
answered Oct 3 at 19:35
scottbb
17.8k75287
17.8k75287
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I am sure that is a filter, not the lens. Remove the filter and problem solved.
You probably need to buy a new filter.
answered Oct 3 at 19:33
Rafael
12.5k11838
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I am sure that is a filter, not the lens. Remove the filter and problem solved.
You probably need to buy a new filter.
answered Oct 3 at 19:33
Rafael
12.5k11838
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I am sure that is a filter, not the lens. Remove the filter and problem solved.
You probably need to buy a new filter.
answered Oct 3 at 19:33
Rafael
12.5k11838
I am sure that is a filter, not the lens. Remove the filter and problem solved.
You probably need to buy a new filter.
answered Oct 3 at 19:33
Rafael
12.5k11838
answered Oct 3 at 19:33
Rafael
12.5k11838
answered Oct 3 at 19:33
Rafael
12.5k11838
answered Oct 3 at 19:33
Rafael
12.5k11838
12.5k11838
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As previously stated, it looks like the filter is damaged, not the lense. But, of course, take the filter off and inspect the lens for damage too. That being said, I was a professional photographer for years and initially, as a budding amateur, I always had a Sky or UV filter on all my lenses to protect that precious glass from damage. Certainly a Sky or UV filter has some benefit in filtering out certain wavelengths of light that you may find unattractive in your photographs. But, unless you keep them sparkling clean, they will impart some issues in your shots. So, I took any filters off my lenses unless I had a photographic reason to add them, was extra careful in protecting my lenses and used metal sunshades when possible to minimize stray light and put something in front of my glass that would help protect, yet not interfere with the quality of my photos.
After working in a camera store I learned that the sales people always recommended a protective filter on any lense they sold. Why? So they could make additional money on the sale, back then (80’s) a Sky A1 filter cost you about $20, cost to the camera store was $2 or 3, nice profit margin. I won’t tell you what they made on batteries. 😳 Keep your lens clean and use a good shade to help keep it out of harms way.
answered Oct 3 at 20:41
Tony
1793
4
A Sky/UV filter only has value if you're shooting film. Film is more sensitive to UV than it is to visible light, so adding a UV filter on top of the natural UV filtering of the lens makes sense. Digital sensors are the other way around, so adding a UV filter just adds opportunities for lens flare, haze, and other problems.
– Mark
Oct 4 at 1:05
Melissa: Be aware that some filters do block a fair amount of light getting to your sensor/film. That polarizing filter will cost you about 2 f-stops of light. In turn may push you to slower shutter speeds to compensate for the lose of light. May be an issue depending on what/how your are photographing your subject.
– Tony
Oct 4 at 12:35
I suspect UV and IR can wreak total havoc especially on digital if they manage to "overpower" the camera-internal filters - it is considered one of the possible reasons for purple fringing. Both CCD and CMOS sensors are actually sensitive as heck to these wavelengths - hence the built-in filters. However, common UV filter designs from the film era are unlikely to help substantially here. So the kind of radiation a UV filter filters on digital setups is particle radiation: doorknobs, stray tools and hardware, projectiles, abrasive dirt....
– rackandboneman
yesterday
And btw, the filter shown looks like it either has very low quality coating, or has been allowed to gather a copious amount of oil/smoke/haze/.... both, unlike dust specks, will be bad for your image... a polarizer should look very translucent or very dark when photographed...
– rackandboneman
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As previously stated, it looks like the filter is damaged, not the lense. But, of course, take the filter off and inspect the lens for damage too. That being said, I was a professional photographer for years and initially, as a budding amateur, I always had a Sky or UV filter on all my lenses to protect that precious glass from damage. Certainly a Sky or UV filter has some benefit in filtering out certain wavelengths of light that you may find unattractive in your photographs. But, unless you keep them sparkling clean, they will impart some issues in your shots. So, I took any filters off my lenses unless I had a photographic reason to add them, was extra careful in protecting my lenses and used metal sunshades when possible to minimize stray light and put something in front of my glass that would help protect, yet not interfere with the quality of my photos.
After working in a camera store I learned that the sales people always recommended a protective filter on any lense they sold. Why? So they could make additional money on the sale, back then (80’s) a Sky A1 filter cost you about $20, cost to the camera store was $2 or 3, nice profit margin. I won’t tell you what they made on batteries. 😳 Keep your lens clean and use a good shade to help keep it out of harms way.
answered Oct 3 at 20:41
Tony
1793
4
A Sky/UV filter only has value if you're shooting film. Film is more sensitive to UV than it is to visible light, so adding a UV filter on top of the natural UV filtering of the lens makes sense. Digital sensors are the other way around, so adding a UV filter just adds opportunities for lens flare, haze, and other problems.
– Mark
Oct 4 at 1:05
Melissa: Be aware that some filters do block a fair amount of light getting to your sensor/film. That polarizing filter will cost you about 2 f-stops of light. In turn may push you to slower shutter speeds to compensate for the lose of light. May be an issue depending on what/how your are photographing your subject.
– Tony
Oct 4 at 12:35
I suspect UV and IR can wreak total havoc especially on digital if they manage to "overpower" the camera-internal filters - it is considered one of the possible reasons for purple fringing. Both CCD and CMOS sensors are actually sensitive as heck to these wavelengths - hence the built-in filters. However, common UV filter designs from the film era are unlikely to help substantially here. So the kind of radiation a UV filter filters on digital setups is particle radiation: doorknobs, stray tools and hardware, projectiles, abrasive dirt....
– rackandboneman
yesterday
And btw, the filter shown looks like it either has very low quality coating, or has been allowed to gather a copious amount of oil/smoke/haze/.... both, unlike dust specks, will be bad for your image... a polarizer should look very translucent or very dark when photographed...
– rackandboneman
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
As previously stated, it looks like the filter is damaged, not the lense. But, of course, take the filter off and inspect the lens for damage too. That being said, I was a professional photographer for years and initially, as a budding amateur, I always had a Sky or UV filter on all my lenses to protect that precious glass from damage. Certainly a Sky or UV filter has some benefit in filtering out certain wavelengths of light that you may find unattractive in your photographs. But, unless you keep them sparkling clean, they will impart some issues in your shots. So, I took any filters off my lenses unless I had a photographic reason to add them, was extra careful in protecting my lenses and used metal sunshades when possible to minimize stray light and put something in front of my glass that would help protect, yet not interfere with the quality of my photos.
After working in a camera store I learned that the sales people always recommended a protective filter on any lense they sold. Why? So they could make additional money on the sale, back then (80’s) a Sky A1 filter cost you about $20, cost to the camera store was $2 or 3, nice profit margin. I won’t tell you what they made on batteries. 😳 Keep your lens clean and use a good shade to help keep it out of harms way.
answered Oct 3 at 20:41
Tony
1793
As previously stated, it looks like the filter is damaged, not the lense. But, of course, take the filter off and inspect the lens for damage too. That being said, I was a professional photographer for years and initially, as a budding amateur, I always had a Sky or UV filter on all my lenses to protect that precious glass from damage. Certainly a Sky or UV filter has some benefit in filtering out certain wavelengths of light that you may find unattractive in your photographs. But, unless you keep them sparkling clean, they will impart some issues in your shots. So, I took any filters off my lenses unless I had a photographic reason to add them, was extra careful in protecting my lenses and used metal sunshades when possible to minimize stray light and put something in front of my glass that would help protect, yet not interfere with the quality of my photos.
After working in a camera store I learned that the sales people always recommended a protective filter on any lense they sold. Why? So they could make additional money on the sale, back then (80’s) a Sky A1 filter cost you about $20, cost to the camera store was $2 or 3, nice profit margin. I won’t tell you what they made on batteries. 😳 Keep your lens clean and use a good shade to help keep it out of harms way.
answered Oct 3 at 20:41
Tony
1793
edited Oct 3 at 23:38
answered Oct 3 at 20:41
Tony
1793
answered Oct 3 at 20:41
Tony
1793
answered Oct 3 at 20:41
Tony
1793
1793
4
A Sky/UV filter only has value if you're shooting film. Film is more sensitive to UV than it is to visible light, so adding a UV filter on top of the natural UV filtering of the lens makes sense. Digital sensors are the other way around, so adding a UV filter just adds opportunities for lens flare, haze, and other problems.
– Mark
Oct 4 at 1:05
Melissa: Be aware that some filters do block a fair amount of light getting to your sensor/film. That polarizing filter will cost you about 2 f-stops of light. In turn may push you to slower shutter speeds to compensate for the lose of light. May be an issue depending on what/how your are photographing your subject.
– Tony
Oct 4 at 12:35
I suspect UV and IR can wreak total havoc especially on digital if they manage to "overpower" the camera-internal filters - it is considered one of the possible reasons for purple fringing. Both CCD and CMOS sensors are actually sensitive as heck to these wavelengths - hence the built-in filters. However, common UV filter designs from the film era are unlikely to help substantially here. So the kind of radiation a UV filter filters on digital setups is particle radiation: doorknobs, stray tools and hardware, projectiles, abrasive dirt....
– rackandboneman
yesterday
And btw, the filter shown looks like it either has very low quality coating, or has been allowed to gather a copious amount of oil/smoke/haze/.... both, unlike dust specks, will be bad for your image... a polarizer should look very translucent or very dark when photographed...
– rackandboneman
yesterday
add a comment |Â
4
A Sky/UV filter only has value if you're shooting film. Film is more sensitive to UV than it is to visible light, so adding a UV filter on top of the natural UV filtering of the lens makes sense. Digital sensors are the other way around, so adding a UV filter just adds opportunities for lens flare, haze, and other problems.
– Mark
Oct 4 at 1:05
Melissa: Be aware that some filters do block a fair amount of light getting to your sensor/film. That polarizing filter will cost you about 2 f-stops of light. In turn may push you to slower shutter speeds to compensate for the lose of light. May be an issue depending on what/how your are photographing your subject.
– Tony
Oct 4 at 12:35
I suspect UV and IR can wreak total havoc especially on digital if they manage to "overpower" the camera-internal filters - it is considered one of the possible reasons for purple fringing. Both CCD and CMOS sensors are actually sensitive as heck to these wavelengths - hence the built-in filters. However, common UV filter designs from the film era are unlikely to help substantially here. So the kind of radiation a UV filter filters on digital setups is particle radiation: doorknobs, stray tools and hardware, projectiles, abrasive dirt....
– rackandboneman
yesterday
And btw, the filter shown looks like it either has very low quality coating, or has been allowed to gather a copious amount of oil/smoke/haze/.... both, unlike dust specks, will be bad for your image... a polarizer should look very translucent or very dark when photographed...
– rackandboneman
yesterday
4
4
A Sky/UV filter only has value if you're shooting film. Film is more sensitive to UV than it is to visible light, so adding a UV filter on top of the natural UV filtering of the lens makes sense. Digital sensors are the other way around, so adding a UV filter just adds opportunities for lens flare, haze, and other problems.
– Mark
Oct 4 at 1:05
A Sky/UV filter only has value if you're shooting film. Film is more sensitive to UV than it is to visible light, so adding a UV filter on top of the natural UV filtering of the lens makes sense. Digital sensors are the other way around, so adding a UV filter just adds opportunities for lens flare, haze, and other problems.
– Mark
Oct 4 at 1:05
Melissa: Be aware that some filters do block a fair amount of light getting to your sensor/film. That polarizing filter will cost you about 2 f-stops of light. In turn may push you to slower shutter speeds to compensate for the lose of light. May be an issue depending on what/how your are photographing your subject.
– Tony
Oct 4 at 12:35
Melissa: Be aware that some filters do block a fair amount of light getting to your sensor/film. That polarizing filter will cost you about 2 f-stops of light. In turn may push you to slower shutter speeds to compensate for the lose of light. May be an issue depending on what/how your are photographing your subject.
– Tony
Oct 4 at 12:35
I suspect UV and IR can wreak total havoc especially on digital if they manage to "overpower" the camera-internal filters - it is considered one of the possible reasons for purple fringing. Both CCD and CMOS sensors are actually sensitive as heck to these wavelengths - hence the built-in filters. However, common UV filter designs from the film era are unlikely to help substantially here. So the kind of radiation a UV filter filters on digital setups is particle radiation: doorknobs, stray tools and hardware, projectiles, abrasive dirt....
– rackandboneman
yesterday
I suspect UV and IR can wreak total havoc especially on digital if they manage to "overpower" the camera-internal filters - it is considered one of the possible reasons for purple fringing. Both CCD and CMOS sensors are actually sensitive as heck to these wavelengths - hence the built-in filters. However, common UV filter designs from the film era are unlikely to help substantially here. So the kind of radiation a UV filter filters on digital setups is particle radiation: doorknobs, stray tools and hardware, projectiles, abrasive dirt....
– rackandboneman
yesterday
And btw, the filter shown looks like it either has very low quality coating, or has been allowed to gather a copious amount of oil/smoke/haze/.... both, unlike dust specks, will be bad for your image... a polarizer should look very translucent or very dark when photographed...
– rackandboneman
yesterday
And btw, the filter shown looks like it either has very low quality coating, or has been allowed to gather a copious amount of oil/smoke/haze/.... both, unlike dust specks, will be bad for your image... a polarizer should look very translucent or very dark when photographed...
– rackandboneman
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Melissa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Melissa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Melissa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Melissa is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f101888%2fwhat-is-the-best-way-to-handle-this-crack-on-nikon-70-300mm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
9
Are you sure that's not a filter on the front of the lens?
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:15
3
Can you take & upload a picture of the side of the lens? Is there printing/embossed lettering around the outside of the rim near the front of the lens? That would show it's probably a filter.
– scottbb
Oct 3 at 19:32
3
You’re so right!!! It is the filter and I’m ordering a new one now!!! Thank you all so much for your help! I appreciate it so muchâ£ï¸Â
– Melissa
Oct 3 at 20:05
5
So, yes, as suspected, with the updated picture - you have a RocketFish RF-CP67 circular polarizer filter on there (67 probably indicates a 67mm diameter thread ring). Remove it, and replace it or don't - I would recommend not, except for certain situations where you know you want to use one. If you really didn't know it was there, then I'd guess you don't really know yet what you would use one for, and so can probably do without, and probably even get better more consistent results in the process.
– twalberg
Oct 3 at 20:06
9
no reason to have a polarizer permanently attached to your lens. try using the lens for a while without the filter. you should notice a performance increase, especially in low light.
– xiota
Oct 3 at 21:33