[Sakura]

Was thinking of buying this protector for my Pentax 150-450.



https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1208871-REG/sigma_afi9e0_86mm_clear_g...981&

Does anyone already has experience with this protector?

Looking trough the internet, i only can find product descriptions and no user experiences.

[MossyRocks]

What problem are you trying to solve?
If you regularly shoot in sandy, dusty, or salty environments then go for it. If not then I would suggest getting a lens hood for your lens.

My general view on filters is that when using them you should be doing so to solve a particular problem or get a specific effect. Things like a CPL, ND, and color filters are common ones to solve some problems or get specific effects. I will also use light pollution filters sometimes when doing astro shooting. There is one lens I own that always has a filter in it but there it actually needs one as it is a drop in filter and the lens seems to have been designed with having a filter in the holder as there is a noticeable decline in astro image quality without one. In that case I put the best UV filter I could find in it and it hasn't left the lens since.

[pschlute]

Was thinking of buying this protector for my Pentax 150-450.

Protect it from what?

[MikeMcE]

Don’t waste your time here with that question. Many will argue both directions,as if we are experts.

Buy it , try it, you’ll like it or won’t.
I personally always have my glass covered In sandy Florida, cannot say it’s created any issues.


Hang up and DRIVE!

[35mmfilmfan]

Variations on this thread have appeared so frequently we could probably weave a tapestry ! People argue from both sides of the case, whether from experience or re-cycling received 'wisdom'. As with any piece of equipment, only you can know if it suits your needs.

[boriscleto]

I can think of better ways to spend $140.

[JohnMc]

Variations on this thread have appeared so frequently we could probably weave a tapestry ! People argue from both sides of the case, whether from experience or re-cycling received 'wisdom'. As with any piece of equipment, only you can know if it suits your needs.

The PF-NFT?

[steephill]

The DFA150-450 comes with a large hood which would make that "protector" redundant except for extreme conditions.

[stevebrot]

It's a rather expensive premium clear glass "filter". Whether it works better or is more WR or is stronger than other premium, high transmittance options is hard to say.

FWIW...I have protective "UV" filters in the bag, but consider them for special case protection only and strictly disposable.


Steve

[Bob 256]

Other than the 99.76% transmittance, there was no mention of coatings (well, there was mention of a water repellent coating) so from the description, we don't know anything about the reflectivity of its surfaces, and those can be the killers for anything you put in the light path (and certainly makes the case for those who prefer nothing in the light path in front of the lens). Personally, I would go for a super-multicoated UV filter for lens protection, although it won't offer the super hardness advertised for this lens accessory, but may be the better optical choice. That's just my opinion but as mentioned, you have to choose for yourself.

[bratzmahn]

I've given up this game for a number of years - it's useless!You add an additional optical element to the system and that can also produce poor results in terms of photo technology. Protection is also not necessarily given: it keeps sand and the like away from the objective lens, but in the event of a fall, the splinters can damage the front lens.Fortunately, I've never had such damage - with or without a filter!Save your money and invest in useful filters, such as gray filter or polarizing filter ...

[DWS1]

I wouldn't spend that much on it. You can get a good quality, multi coated UV filter for less.

[bwgv001]

I would not use additional "glass" the hood should protect well enough

[pentaxus]

I use protective filters and when I had access to test equipment found that a good filter doesn't affect image quality. If you are paranoid like me, it can be a way to go. However, if you are going to take sunset pictures which include the sun you will have to take it off. It is easy to end up with multiple sun reflections.

[mikesbike]

Other than the 99.76% transmittance, there was no mention of coatings (well, there was mention of a water repellent coating) so from the description, we don't know anything about the reflectivity of its surfaces, and those can be the killers for anything you put in the light path (and certainly makes the case for those who prefer nothing in the light path in front of the lens). Personally, I would go for a super-multicoated UV filter for lens protection, although it won't offer the super hardness advertised for this lens accessory, but may be the better optical choice. That's just my opinion but as mentioned, you have to choose for yourself.

I agree. This Pentax lens already has WR from descriptions I have seen. Super-multi coated UV filters are not cheap either, but would be the best kind of protective filter, while having those extra coatings will minimize any tendency to introduce added susceptibility to negative effects such as flair.

I bought one from B&H not all that long ago that might catch your interest if it is available in that very large size: B+W XS-PRO MRC nano 010 UV-Haze filter made in Germany. Looked to me to have exceptionally fine specs for quality and performance. Such UV haze filters are perhaps more useful for telephoto lenses, as haze is more apt to show up in distant scenes.