filters for new lenses on M9

[spersky]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will have all my new Leica gear on Monday. Including the M9 and the 50mm summilux and the 28mm summicron. What protective filters should I order?

 

Should I just get the IR filters by Leica in the off chance there is some residual IR cast?

 

Should I just get the slim heliopan UV filters?

 

Thanks

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Should I just get the IR filters by Leica in the off chance there is some residual IR cast?

 

 

It's more than just an off-chance. Even Leica admits officially there is residual IR, although some users claim Leica doesn't know what they're talking about Whether it affects you depends on what you shoot, and your standards and/or those of your clients if you're a pro. You may want to hold off on getting IR filters until you judge for yourself. You may find the residual magenta doesn't bother you. In any case, it's not just the simple matter of adding a front IR filter. Lenses 50mm and shorter show the green (cyan) corner cast, and Leica hasn't (yet) put in-camera correction for it as there is on the M8. So you will need to run all those files through Cornerfix during post.

[spersky]

It is scarey for me to shoot a 4000 dollar lens with no filter

 

BTW, I am not a pro just a guy who wants/needs $15,000 Leica gear to take pictures of cats and dogs and kids

 

I think I just answered my question. DPreview address the IR issue, and says that there is none.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leicam9/page8.asp

[erl]

[quote name=spersky;1121561

BTW' date=' I am not a pro just a guy who wants/needs $15,000 Leica gear to take pictures of cats and dogs and kids

[/quote]

 

Spersky, there are many like you but I don't recall anyone being honest enough to admit it so openly as you have. I salute you.

 

......... and may your cat and dog and family pics 'sing.'

I am sure you will.

[brill64]

i have plenty of scratched and dented filters. no need for the uv/ir filters on the m9, these are for the m8 and m8.2 only. you won't need the slim heliopan filters for the 3 lens kit you mention. an ordinary uv or skylight filter will suffice and they don't have to be leica branded although it sounds like you can afford it;). it's definitely a good idea to use filters to protect the front lens element from accidental knocks, smears, dust and moisture. i'm careful with my equipment but dings and dents do unexpectedly appear from time to time with normal to heavy use so i'm grateful for the added protection and consider it essential kit for my lenses. in my opinion, better to have them than not. good luck with your fantastic new kit and enjoy!

[noah_addis]

You don't need IR filters with the M9.

 

I would, however, recommend protective UV filters. I always use the B+W brand MRC (multi-coated) filters. They're of very high optical and mechanical quality, I prefer them over the Leica filters since the rings seem more heavy-duty.

 

The filters will protect your lenses from dog and cat (and kid) drool. Money well spent:D

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like to shoot without filters, actually I always did, but a few years M8 have made me more nervous. However, passport guarantee and insurance help I find IR filters are superfluous on the M9, except in the most extreme circumstances, and even then any residual colour shift is normally easily corrected in postprocessing.

[LeicaS2]

Shooting kids? Always use a filter. Years ago, I was asked to advise on camera selection and suggested a filter for protection. Guy went home and started to photograph his six year old who threw a small toy metal car at his father, and hit the filter straight on, and cracked it. But the lens was fine. The Dad became a believer and so did I. No kids? No need for a filter, the front elements today are very tough.

[Guest mc_k]

would it be misguided to use the ir filter to benefit sharpness?

 

don't know

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Yes that would be misguided... The UV-IR filter do NOT increase sharpness. that filter protect the M8 sensor from IR light.

 

However, putting a high-end UV filter on your expensive lenses are shockingly effective protection and are likely to protect your lens from dings.

 

Truth is that very very very few of us will ever be good enough with our equipment, that the difference from a UV filter on the lens will be discernible as a problem.

 

 

spersky..... YEAH DUDE.. Lets soo those kids shots... all of them..! (post in people forum)

 

.

[Bill W]

Spersky.....my cat hates me as well as the wife when I state I am just camera lens testing when I shoot the constantly.....It really does take the M9 and 6 lens to do this I have found.

[Guest mc_k]

The UV-IR filter do NOT increase sharpness. that filter protect the M8 sensor from IR light.

 

I think the rationale is that the IR range focuses at a different distance than the visible, creating an out-of-focus overlay. The filter is supposed to increase sharpness as well as decrease color shifts. Don't know if it's really significant, though.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

mckeough_k,

 

Not arguing your point really... but this particular forum is about the M9... the M9 is NOT as sensitive to IR as the M8 was. Your point is entirely valid in the M8 forum and if you are using a M8.

 

Use a UV filter - NOT a UV-IR filter - on your M9, as the UV-IR filter will mess with the colors, particular on the wide lenses. I know that because I have been pulling UV-IR filters off all my M lenses the last week.

 

.

[Guest mc_k]

I'm sure a UV filter is more appropriate for the original poster, but maybe not fashion photography, etc. And there may be a menu option coming for people to use their UV/IR filters. The UV/IR for the 50 should be fine. One could get a UV for the 28 and a UV/IR for the 50 to hedge the bet.

[Guest mc_k]

...this particular forum is about the M9... the M9 is NOT as sensitive to IR as the M8 was...

 

I think the IR sensitivity of the r-d1 was underestimated, and then IR filters became more popular for it. I was posting about the M9, not the M8. But sorry, nevertheless.

[AnakChan]

I'd vote for the B+W UV MRC too. Got that for my Lux 35mm. Dunno if I'd agree if B+W are more "heavy duty" (esp the newer ones)...my 12 yr old B+W are, but my newer ones (for my Nikon 70-200/2.8) have the rims dented just by pressure from adjacent lenses.

 

Having said that, my Leica UV filter rim for my Elmarit 90mm also dented so having, may as well go with the cheaper B+W. .

 

Call me a snob but I'm not so keen on the Japanese Marumi's/Kenko's, etc.

[brill64]

I'd vote for the B+W UV MRC too. Got that for my Lux 35mm. Dunno if I'd agree if B+W are more "heavy duty" (esp the newer ones)...my 12 yr old B+W are, but my newer ones (for my Nikon 70-200/2.8) have the rims dented just by pressure from adjacent lenses.

 

Having said that, my Leica UV filter rim for my Elmarit 90mm also dented so having, may as well go with the cheaper B+W. .

 

Call me a snob but I'm not so keen on the Japanese Marumi's/Kenko's, etc.

 

..snob:D

[jaapv]

Both Heliopan and B&W produce so called "protective" filters, which have a few advantages over UV filters. The glass is far stronger and it thinner as well, so the aberrations are reduced.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Jaap

 

"protective filters" never heard about that, but I will be trying to pick a couple up this week. Just seems foolish to lug around some of those 60mm frontal lenses with no protection, particularly since I manages to scratch and beat up my cameras and the metal on the lenses.

 

Great point, thank you.

 

.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter Lea]

Having ruined the muticoating on a "R" 35 - 70mm a few years ago, I'm a fan of UV/protective filters. As somebody said, "stuff happens", and a filter is a lot cheaper than a lens.

Peter Lea