UV filters for Leica lenses

[bono0272]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was in Solms for a factory visit, the guide over there said that there is no need to put a UV filter in front of the Leica lenses under normal conditions, unless the envirnoment is extreme. He also emphasised that all Leica lenses front element coatings are specially treated which are wear-resisted.

 

Are these true?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ho_co]

Yes.

 

For years, Leica lenses use either a special cement (Absorban) or a special glass (as in the 4-element Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8) which absorbs UV. Therefore, no need for a UVa filter.

 

If what you want is protection for the front element, that's your choice. I have a UVa filter for all my lenses but don't use it unless I'm going to the beach or into a rainstorm or such.

 

If you want to use a filter all the time, nothing wrong with that. But remember: Every lens is computed for optimal performance. Adding another piece of glass can't improve optical performance.

 

Or, putting it the other way: If you wanted to do a lens test, you would do it without filter, wouldn't you?

 

The rule is: Don't keep cleaning the front element; keep it clean.

[lars_bergquist]

Lenses designed and manufactured since the early 1960's use UV-absorbent lens cement, special glass and (later) also specially designed coatings to keep UV radiation out. So filters are redundant, optically speaking. Leitz/Leica have also been telling users that filters do decrease the optical performance, at least by adding two extra glass surfaces and increasing the risk of reflexes, which is true. Normally, the decrease of lens definition is not detectable except in a well-equipped laboratory.

 

The fact that this piece of advice has been taken may have something to do with the fact that so many used Leica lenses have cleaning marks or even scratches on their front elements. Considering the prices of Leica lenses, it is perfectly reasonable to use a filter simply for protection, and damn the reflexes (which occur only with very strong sources of light against a black background). Now of course, users of the M8 need to use an UV/IR cut filter on their lenses, but that does worry me only when I want to put a pola filter in front of it!

 

One good way to protect your front element (and keep some annoying stray light out) is to use a lens hood.

 

The old man from the Age B.C. (Before Coating)

[waileong]

I was in Solms for a factory visit, the guide over there said that there is no need to put a UV filter in front of the Leica lenses under normal conditions, unless the envirnoment is extreme. He also emphasised that all Leica lenses front element coatings are specially treated which are wear-resisted.

 

Are these true?

 

You didn't ask the guy if he was lying?

 

Look-- UV coatings have been a part of lens manufacture for many years now. Hence there is no need for a UV filter per se. Of course, if you are afraid of sand, dust, salt water, etc. a UV filter is helpful. But UV resistance is totally unnecessary. Far better to get a skylight or 81B so you'll have a warming effect.

[bill]

I use sky filters, but typically only when I really think I need to protect the front element; at or on the sea, for instance, or in a very smoky environment. Otherwise I let my lenses run nekkid as Leica intended, relying on caps, hoods and care when handling to keep them protected. In fact, the only lens that I own that has a permanently fitted sky filter is the 50mm f1.2 Canon, and that is predominantly to protect that dinner-plate front element from flying fingers!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Guest DuquesneG]

But remember: Every lens is computed for optimal performance. Adding another piece of glass can't improve optical performance.

 

Or, putting it the other way: If you wanted to do a lens test, you would do it without filter, wouldn't you?

 

Not if I intended using the lens on an M8, given that a filter is pretty much mandatory.

[leica dream]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does this mean that the Vario-Elmar lens on the V-LUX1 is coated already too, so UV is not needed?

Richard

[kenneth]

I guess old habits die hard but this thread makes a valid argument against the use of filters. It is also good to know that filters are an unnecessary attachment. That is why I love the freedom that Leica users enjoy

[kodaktrix]

If You want a filter for protection only, I can recommend Heliopan "Protection" filters with the SH-PMC coating. I used them the first time in Wales at the beach and am very satisfied with them. Very easy to clean with that coating.

 

Regards

 

Oliver

[leitz_not_leica]

I have and use OLD lenses, so I don't like to contribute any more damage to them than they already have. I HATE front lens caps, so the lenses go into my bag almost ready for use, ditto reversable hoods; what a dumb idea; designing a hood to reverse, not to optimally reduce flare. If only someone made rear protective filters...LOL.

[oris642]

I just took a three-day course from a professional photographer, Stuart Dee. The Canon rep told him that filters are unnecessary these days for protection, as "the coating is harder than the glass". To make his point, the Canon rep put his cigarette out on the lens : )

[NZDavid]

<<Damn the reflexes,>> Lars? Why blame R users?

 

I found a B+W UVa filter helped with mountain photography - very hazy to the naked eye, but it would have been interesting to compare filtered and unfiltered shots. I shall try that next time.

 

Lens protection is worthwhile -- another reason to use a hood.

[NZDavid]

How did the factor tour go? Is Karl-Heinz Welcker still doing the tours? Well worthwhile -- I thoroughly enjoyed my visit last year.

[Guest DuquesneG]

I just took a three-day course from a professional photographer, Stuart Dee. The Canon rep told him that filters are unnecessary these days for protection, as "the coating is harder than the glass". To make his point, the Canon rep put his cigarette out on the lens : )

 

Sounds like a great opportunity for product placement. Somebody should tell Phillip Morris:D

[dhsimmonds]

A member of this forum actually dropped his R9/DMR with an expensive R lens with UV filter attached. the filter cracked thus saving the front element of the lens, which although not looking as pristine as it did, functioned perfectly.

 

UV or skylight filters will continue to stay on my lenses thank you!

[rubenkok]

For protection I use them on all my lenses !

Image from: protection filters

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

A member of this forum actually dropped his R9/DMR with an expensive R lens with UV filter attached. the filter cracked thus saving the front element of the lens, which although not looking as pristine as it did, functioned perfectly.

 

UV or skylight filters will continue to stay on my lenses thank you!

Yep- and I dropped an apo-telyt 280/4.0 with a protective filter and the shards scratched my front element....

[luigi bertolotti]

Like to join for this issue of UV makes me go back to the "old" times of M4... 15-16 months with M8 and film forgotten...

Well, with M4 I used old (50's) and rather "new" lenses (70's-80's), all anyway coated, and took many pics 3000 meters and above, often with snow : I remember very well that with my very 1st generation Summicron 35 the difference no-with UV was VERY noticeable, so as with my Summaron 28: without UV, I always had the feeling of a degree of OOF, surely due to the "UV-drawn" image; things were indeed different with lenses like my Elmarit 28 (80's) and Elmar-C 90 (70's): I obviously concluded that, at a certain timeframe, the coating tech evolved to include a good protection from UV rays too.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[andybarton]

Just been told that my 19mm Elmarit-R (1st Generation), the one with the damaged front element, is unrepairable. May look into an insurance claim, in that case, due to the damage.

 

However, let this be a warning to those that don't use UV filters on the front of their lenses...

[Guest DuquesneG]

Andy, I'm with you there...never been one of those pompous guys who thinks I'm so great a photographer that my masterworks would be "degraded" by a UV filter...however take some solace in the fact that even though your lens has 82mm threads, you might not have ever found a filter that didn't either rub the front element or vignette. I had that lens and that was what I found.