It is purely protection from dirt and spray I'm thinking Paul. I wouldn't expect anymore physical protection.
It will do that fine, Rob. As I say I had a right mess on my scope objective after a few days seawatching at Pendeen a couple of weeks ago & it was a pain to get totally clean. I suppose a compromise would be to fit a filter when seawatching & go without when not!! But maybe that's too much faffing about. The lower optical quality as rightly mentioned by John is my main concern but maybe it's because digiscoping is so big a part of my hobby and I don't want to compromise on image quality. Without that as a consideration I suppose it's each to his or her own
Craig Higson said
Fri Oct 3 5:58 PM, 2014
It is purely protection from dirt and spray I'm thinking Paul. I wouldn't expect anymore physical protection.
Doc Brewster said
Fri Oct 3 10:43 AM, 2014
Totally agree with John, I too don't see the point of putting an optically inferior object in front of a high end scope. I digiscope & would never do that. Also when selling kit in our shop I always advise folk to that end too, telling them I wouldn't use a purely protective filter. But some still do buy one. I have recently had to do a major objective clean on my scope after seawatching at Pendeen but after using cleaning fluid from Swarovski and cleaning gently the lens in sparkling and coating undamaged.
If you go down the filter route Craig, I would look at it as protection from dirt, salt spray etc rather than total protection against knocks. I have known mates who have dropped scopes & the filter has smashed and the objective has been damaged by impact despite the filter being on!
p.s the Leica filters still cost under £50 so as John rightly says were optically inferior to the scope.
-- Edited by Doc Brewster on Friday 3rd of October 2014 10:45:41 AM
Craig Higson said
Thu Oct 2 4:27 PM, 2014
Or regarding the scope issue specifically - I suppose its a case of fantastic image/higher risk of damage/cost of scope replacement or slightly less good image/lower risk of damage/cost of filter.
Personally I like my scope and to be honest couldnt afford to replace it at the moment so the filter is a no brainier, especially on the coast.
JOHN TYMON said
Thu Oct 2 1:00 PM, 2014
Craig Higson wrote:
Leica certainly used to for the 77Televid John. Not sure about the new ones. I can understand being concerned if you are digiscoping, but for me there was very little (if any) discernible fall off in image quality. Yes it is inferior glass but the protection it offers I think outweighs that. Plus. Its easy enough to unscrew in situations where I might (unlikely) want to digiscope, or if I feel it is really affecting the image.
I was under the impression that a lot of photographers keep a filter permanently attached to their lenses with no impact - is that not right?
Not anyone I know,most only use filters for creative use like polorisers etc for me all the protective filter etc is just a tool for shops to sell you when really they make the image worse,but add cost to the purchase ,its i suppose a choice on wether you want everything in pristine condition or get the better photo. cheers John
Craig Higson said
Thu Oct 2 12:35 PM, 2014
Leica certainly used to for the 77Televid John. Not sure about the new ones. I can understand being concerned if you are digiscoping, but for me there was very little (if any) discernible fall off in image quality. Yes it is inferior glass but the protection it offers I think outweighs that. Plus. Its easy enough to unscrew in situations where I might (unlikely) want to digiscope, or if I feel it is really affecting the image.
I was under the impression that a lot of photographers keep a filter permanently attached to their lenses with no impact - is that not right?
JOHN TYMON said
Thu Oct 2 10:09 AM, 2014
Craig Higson wrote:
Anybody else use one?
I was discussing birding and binoculars/scopes with a photographer friend of mine a few days ago. I happened to mention that I was always slightly concerned when I go seawatching, or indeed to any coastal location, that the objective on my scope invariably gets coated in a lovely layer of salt spray. It is widely stated that salt spray can ruin the coatings on lenses, so this obviously leads to cleaning which I'd rather keep to a minimum. Particularly to the objective of my scope as I always feel im at risk of leaving a piece of dirt on there to scratch the lens.
Anyway he asked whether I had thought of using a filter. I must admit I did a while ago - Leica used to make a specific one - but always worried that it would spoil the image. After forking out on the scope, the last thing you want to do is reduce the image quality. He, as a photographer, had a different opinion and reckoned it wouldn't matter.
Anyway, today he brought me in a clear uv filter he no longer uses to try (it's a Hoya). Oh how I wish I'd bought one before. The loss of image quality is hardly noticeable, if it is at all. In fact I'm going to keep it permanently attached. I noticed a couple of very minor scratches on the objective when I was fiddling with the filter, so now I'm just going to leave the filter in place and clean that. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to replace the filter than it is the scope.
So, a bit of advice I suppose. Dont dismiss the idea of using a filter to protect your valuable scope. You probably won't even know its there.
I would say theres 2 ways of looking at that after spending £2000+ on a Swarovski scope with top class glass,is it right to put a £15 hoya filter on the front of it with obviously inferior glass. Its the same with photography its amazing how many buy a £2000 lens then put a protective glass on the front of it for about £10,then wonder why thier shots are soft in the focus department. I am sure if Scopes were meant to have filters on the front the major contenders swar/zeiss/leica would be selling them for about £200.
Craig Higson said
Wed Oct 1 11:27 PM, 2014
Anybody else use one?
I was discussing birding and binoculars/scopes with a photographer friend of mine a few days ago. I happened to mention that I was always slightly concerned when I go seawatching, or indeed to any coastal location, that the objective on my scope invariably gets coated in a lovely layer of salt spray. It is widely stated that salt spray can ruin the coatings on lenses, so this obviously leads to cleaning which I'd rather keep to a minimum. Particularly to the objective of my scope as I always feel im at risk of leaving a piece of dirt on there to scratch the lens.
Anyway he asked whether I had thought of using a filter. I must admit I did a while ago - Leica used to make a specific one - but always worried that it would spoil the image. After forking out on the scope, the last thing you want to do is reduce the image quality. He, as a photographer, had a different opinion and reckoned it wouldn't matter.
Anyway, today he brought me in a clear uv filter he no longer uses to try (it's a Hoya). Oh how I wish I'd bought one before. The loss of image quality is hardly noticeable, if it is at all. In fact I'm going to keep it permanently attached. I noticed a couple of very minor scratches on the objective when I was fiddling with the filter, so now I'm just going to leave the filter in place and clean that. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to replace the filter than it is the scope.
So, a bit of advice I suppose. Dont dismiss the idea of using a filter to protect your valuable scope. You probably won't even know its there.
It will do that fine, Rob. As I say I had a right mess on my scope objective after a few days seawatching at Pendeen a couple of weeks ago & it was a pain to get totally clean. I suppose a compromise would be to fit a filter when seawatching & go without when not!! But maybe that's too much faffing about. The lower optical quality as rightly mentioned by John is my main concern but maybe it's because digiscoping is so big a part of my hobby and I don't want to compromise on image quality. Without that as a consideration I suppose it's each to his or her own
If you go down the filter route Craig, I would look at it as protection from dirt, salt spray etc rather than total protection against knocks. I have known mates who have dropped scopes & the filter has smashed and the objective has been damaged by impact despite the filter being on!
p.s the Leica filters still cost under £50 so as John rightly says were optically inferior to the scope.
-- Edited by Doc Brewster on Friday 3rd of October 2014 10:45:41 AM
Personally I like my scope and to be honest couldnt afford to replace it at the moment so the filter is a no brainier, especially on the coast.
Not anyone I know,most only use filters for creative use like polorisers etc for me all the protective filter etc is just a tool for shops to sell you when really they make the image worse,but add cost to the purchase ,its i suppose a choice on wether you want everything in pristine condition or get the better photo.
cheers John
I was under the impression that a lot of photographers keep a filter permanently attached to their lenses with no impact - is that not right?
I would say theres 2 ways of looking at that after spending £2000+ on a Swarovski scope with top class glass,is it right to put a £15 hoya filter on the front of it with obviously inferior glass. Its the same with photography its amazing how many buy a £2000 lens then put a protective glass on the front of it for about £10,then wonder why thier shots are soft in the focus department. I am sure if Scopes were meant to have filters on the front the major contenders swar/zeiss/leica would be selling them for about £200.
I was discussing birding and binoculars/scopes with a photographer friend of mine a few days ago. I happened to mention that I was always slightly concerned when I go seawatching, or indeed to any coastal location, that the objective on my scope invariably gets coated in a lovely layer of salt spray. It is widely stated that salt spray can ruin the coatings on lenses, so this obviously leads to cleaning which I'd rather keep to a minimum. Particularly to the objective of my scope as I always feel im at risk of leaving a piece of dirt on there to scratch the lens.
Anyway he asked whether I had thought of using a filter. I must admit I did a while ago - Leica used to make a specific one - but always worried that it would spoil the image. After forking out on the scope, the last thing you want to do is reduce the image quality. He, as a photographer, had a different opinion and reckoned it wouldn't matter.
Anyway, today he brought me in a clear uv filter he no longer uses to try (it's a Hoya). Oh how I wish I'd bought one before. The loss of image quality is hardly noticeable, if it is at all. In fact I'm going to keep it permanently attached. I noticed a couple of very minor scratches on the objective when I was fiddling with the filter, so now I'm just going to leave the filter in place and clean that. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to replace the filter than it is the scope.
So, a bit of advice I suppose. Dont dismiss the idea of using a filter to protect your valuable scope. You probably won't even know its there.