UV IR filter as protection on M9?

[XVarior]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys, I need some advice.

For a 35mm lens on M9, is it ok to use Leica's UV IR 13411 as protection to the front element without affecting image?

Edited September 25, 2014 by XVarior

[jaapv]

Any filter will affect the image. The amount is so minimal, however, that it is of no practical interest.

The lens is least affected and best protected if you use a real protective filter like the B&W 007 filters as they are extra thin and made of impact-resistant glass.

But use your Leica one by all means.

[Advertisement]

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

[gabriel]

On an M9 you need to use a UV or protection filter. A UVIR filter can cause various problems on the M9 and is for use on the M8 only

[XVarior]

Thank you Jaap and Gab. I'll take it off right away

[mirekti]

Has there been a comparison between M9 and M in terms which one is more sensitive to the near IR?

[XVarior]

Just called my local dealer and he has no UV only filter. now I'm hesitant to leave the front glass on my lens unprotected ;-(

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A UVIR filter can cause various problems on the M9 and is for use on the M8 only

 

What problems will a UVIR filter cause?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I use UVIR filters on my M9 and Mtype 240s. I do see some IR contamination at times (I'm a wedding photographer- synthetic fabrics are my every day. They're not recommended for ultrawides but on everything from 28mm you should be fine. I have no issues on any of my lenses, including my 35mm lux.

 

Gordon

[jip]

I use the UV/IR filters on all my bodies, because all digital cameras have some sensitivity to IR light, the M8 more than the M9 but still quite a bit, and the M240 more than the M9 but less than the M8...

[XVarior]

I use the UV/IR filters on all my bodies, because all digital cameras have some sensitivity to IR light, the M8 more than the M9 but still quite a bit, and the M240 more than the M9 but less than the M8...

 

Oh wow, Jip, your input is about the only positive one regarding this filter M9-IR combo. in case it would enhance the image, in which lighting situation could that be and in which situation you think it could go wrong?

thanks again for your input.

[erl]

I have had serious IR contamination in stage/theatrical work in particular (the major culprit is synthetic black fabrics that abound in these scenarios), but also with tungsten lit motifs using the M9. Once I added the UV/IR cut filters from my M8 days the problem dissolved. I now leave the filters on my lens set permanently and have noticed some benefit in the representation of some greens in landscape work as a side benefit.

 

The only downside of filters is intenal reflections that can happen when shooting light sources in frame (night scenes) some times. This is true of ALL filters.

[NB23]

UV/IR on ALL digital is good practice.

[NB23]

On an M9 you need to use a UV or protection filter. A UVIR filter can cause various problems on the M9 and is for use on the M8 only

 

Where did you pick that up?

[Guest volker_m]

UV/IR on ALL digital is good practice.

 

IR-cut filters cause color shift if the light doesn't pass exactly perpendicular to the filter surface. You can easily see the color shift if you look through an UV/IR filter at an angle. This effect can be very annoying if you add UV/IR filter in front of wide angle lenses.

 

The M8 did remove that color shift from the RAW data, based on the detected lens code. The newer bodies don't expect and don't remove color shift from UV/IR filters, so this needs to be done manually by the user.

 

Using a plain UV-cut filter avoids the color shift issue.

[CVickery]

UV/IR on ALL digital is good practice.

 

While I have no issue using UV/IR filters on many of my lenses, it should be noted that the filter manufacturers do indicate that the UV/IR filters are recommended for use on lenses with a angle of view of 60 degrees or narrower ... ie ~35mm and up. Wider lenses will exhibit varying degrees of colored edges that may or may not be adequately dealt with by software profiles.

[pico]

IR-cut filters cause color shift if the light doesn't pass exactly perpendicular to the filter surface. You can easily see the color shift if you look through an UV/IR filter at an angle.

 

 

The eye is not a camera.

[jdlaing]

The eye is not a camera.

 

I think it is and a pretty damn good one too. YMMV.

[Guest volker_m]

The eye is not a camera.

 

The "green corners" side effect of UV/IR is pretty obvious with the camera. The wider the lens, the more obvious it is.

 

Examples below are with M9 and Summilux21, shot against a white wall. First picture without filter, second picture with Leica UV/IR filter added.

Unlike the M8, the M9 does not automatically remove the color shift because it is not designed for UV/IR filter use.

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!

[darylgo]

The wonderful thing about digital is immediate feedback, I like to do my own testing on these matters. I also like uv/ir filters, so a simple test would be to shoot some pictures with and without the filter on the body/lens/subject/lighting situation and then your decision is evidence based. If the uv/ir filter degrades the image consider replacing it, however the situation may cause any filter to degrade also, therefore replacing the uv/ir with a uv or cover glass filter may net you zero.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[k-hawinkler]

Both images could be corrected with LCC, no?

LCC = Lens Cast correction

 

I use filters only for specific effects, but not for general protection.

However, I use hoods.

Edited September 26, 2014 by k-hawinkler