Ironically, the better your lens, the more desirable it is not to have a filter on it

[Samir Jahjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just read that article (date Feb 2005) and thought it would be interesting to mention it here...

 

The Filter Flare Factor

 

The above title is a quote of Mike Johnston.

[jaapv]

I just read that article (date Feb 2005) and thought it would be interesting to mention it here...

 

The Filter Flare Factor

 

The above title is a quote of Mike Johnston.

 

That article is about a protective filters.I wholly agree and always have been in the "naked "camp.However, due to the complicated layering, IR filters are supposed to be far more flare resistant. I have been trying this out, and judging by the LCD this is actually true. I'll post the result later.

[jaapv]

So this one was slap into the sun with the Tri-Elmar long, chosen deliberately as it is one of the least flare-resistant lenses.I don't think it would have done much better witout filter....

 

 

 

And this one same lens sun in left hand upper corner:

 

 

Those two diaphragm spots are clonable.

[lct]

...I don't think it would have done much better witout filter....Those two diaphragm spots are clonable.

Do you mean that you've shot some pics without IR-cut filter and that you've got the same flare and diaphragm spots as above actually?

Just curious.

[wizard]

Do you mean that you've shot some pics without IR-cut filter and that you've got the same flare and diaphragm spots as above actually?

 

That's what I would expect. The (detrimental) influence of filters on optical performance is in my view far overrated.

 

Andy

[lct]

Often got filter-related ghost images personally.

Wonder if the spots above are not ghost images as well BTW.

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great subject line, but read it more deeply: If you have a lousy lens, using a filter can't cause much noticeable degradation. If you have a good lens, the increase in flare or loss of definition caused by a filter will be noticeable, but you'll still be getting a better image with the filter than with a lousy lens.

 

For the most part, use of a plane filter does no damage to the image. Erwin Puts points this out in chapter 4, section 6 of his Leica Lens Compendium (available for downlod online). The two exceptions, in which a filter will produce some degradation, are: 1) with wide-angle lenses; and 2) with bright light sources in the picture.

 

Neither of these situations is uncommon when using a rangefinder camera, of course. But in the cas of the M8, the camera shows superb results, and in some cases better results with the IR-cut filter than without.

 

And we still have the choice: filter or no, coded lens or no, hood or no, even take pictures or no.

[jaapv]

Do you mean that you've shot some pics without IR-cut filter and that you've got the same flare and diaphragm spots as above actually?

Just curious.

 

No I have not, as I was trying to establish if flare control was adequate with IR filters on. I fear I did not have the time, nor the inclination I must confess, to do a side by side test. If such a test would be valid is somewhat doubtful as it will be hard to avoid any camera movement when replacing filters and flare can be influenced by minute changes of camera position and light. A moving branch or a wisp of cloud may certainly change the flare pattern.

A can say, though, that the result I got here did, in practice, not differ from the results I get normally with this lens. And the shots are pretty extreme for provoking flare.

[jaapv]

Often got filter-related ghost images personally.

Wonder if the spots above are not ghost images as well BTW.

 

You may well be right; the sun was outside the frame, just on the edge of the upper LH corner. If those are ghost-images, it is well-controlled.

[lct]

Thank you Jaap.

Looks like i'll have to try one of those things soon or late.

[frc]

The tri-e and lux 35 asph I no longer use with a filter because of the problems metioned.

I tested it and found out that the tri-e is still prone to flare, but less.

The 35 with fiter gave me ghost-images when I had light-sources in the frame, without the filter it never had any problems like that anymore.

In previous treads I mentioned this and got bashed for it, happy to see others have the same troubles and are critical enough to express it.

This is my main reason to wait and see what the developments will be on the fixes of the M8.

[Zurenborger]

Subject is not ironic at all.

 

Actually I learned to shoot without filters unless one is need, high altitudes etc. or for B&W enhancement purposes.

 

I think it's a well known fact that adding layers of glass to existing layers of glass ..... what the heck who am I telling this here. I would actually believe that if this question was imposed on you before the M8 introduction 89% would agree with the fact that filters should be used sparesomely (if this is a right word, which I doubt) and that it will always interfere with the end image quality....