Filters on Leica lenses... compromises in picture quality?

[PeterSchlicht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Leica aficionados!

 

A short remark first: Although I'm following this forum for quite some time already, this is only my second post and my first thread. I highly appreciate the wealth of information and knowledge here as it partly encouraged me to finally take the plunge into investing in Leica equipment.

 

I ordered a Leica M9 in February together with Summilux 50 Asph and a Elmarit 28 Asph. Once I'm back in Germany from a business trip, all three are waiting for me to get picked up!!! I am a very happy man.

 

But here is a question I always wanted to clarify: By attaching any (UV, etc.) filter to a high-end lens, e.g. Lux 50 Asph., to which extend (%) the picture quality (definition, sharpness, resolution, colour) would be compromised compared to the picture coming from a bare lens? As Leica, the lens manufacturer, puts all its efforts into correcting even the slightest errors, I don't think the filters undergo a similar rigid selection process in terms of quality as the Leica glass and would jeopardize the final picture quality. At least I assume filters are not up on-par with Leica glass.

What's your take on this subject? Do you use filters for protection purposes?

 

Cheers, Peter

 

... guess what? ... 3 days away from receiving M9, Lux50Asph, Elmarit 28Asph...

[jaapv]

This is usually referred as the opening of a can of worms . Yes, filters do degrade the image quality to a certain extent, I will skip the theoretical considerations, but if one uses top quality filters the degradation is so minimal that other considerations like the optcal effect or other function (protection) will prevail. However, I personally belong to the school that thinks filters should only be used if there is an objective reason for doing so!

[PeterSchlicht]

I'm totally with you, Jaap. I used the Nikkor 1.4/85mm for over 20 yrs till today without protection filters, in deserts, mountains and snowstorms and there is no single scratch on it.

[250swb]

I think if you are getting into the territory where a good UV or protection filter is going to spoil the ultimate image the photograph would have to be made under studio conditions with controlled lighting and a tripod. And even then I'd bet not many people would spot the difference, or could be bothered to look for a difference that a filter could make.

 

In everyday photography so many other things are compromises that any or all could be worse than having a filter on the lens, like not using the perfect f/stop, a shutter speed that doesn't perfectly stop the photographers movement, a less that perfect meter reading, noise from shadows or noise from higher ISO's etc.

 

So its hardly worth worrying about. I use a filter for protection a lot of the time because when I'm out I don't put the lens cap back on each time a lens get changed, it makes it quicker. So the front element needs some protection from the things that can happen inside the camera bag.... But if I'm out on a more relaxed landscape day I may take the filters off, but I don't have a rule about it.

 

Steve

[andybarton]

All my lenses have UV filters on them. I have lost the front element of a lens to damage whilst it was being used, and I'm not going to let it happen again.

 

Filters are cheap - lenses aren't.

[jaapv]

A good solid lens hood is pretty good protection as well - or even better. I lost a front element of a lens to a scratch by a shard of a broken filter-glass. Anyhow - if you want to protect your lenses by a filter, I strongly recommend the use of specific protective filters instead of UV filters. The B&W 007 or Heliopan " protective" are made out of extra-thin toughened glass and have enhanced anti-reflective coating.

[Viv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Possible image degradation by filters is a much smaller variable than photographer error.

 

Don't worry about it.

[pkowalchuk]

I have always used filters on my lenses, but I must tell you a story that brought me to Leica. It was around 15 or so years ago. I was getting back into photography after a hiatus while my two daughters were young. I went to the annual huge photo exposition at the Javits Convention Center in New York City. Leica had a stand, which I visited. My question to the rep at the Leica stand was simple: why would I want to buy a Leica? (I'd been an Olympus SLR fan for years and used only prime lenses.) The rep mashed his cigarette our in what I thought was an ash tray and put the first generation M6 (with opposite moving f-stop ring and shutter speed dial) on the floor and stood on it. I was amazed. And, I was even more amazed when he jumped on it, picked it up and showed me that it had not been damaged and worked perfectly. I was sold.

 

Then I asked about the lenses. To my utter amazement, he picked up the "ash tray" wiped it off with a cloth and showed me that the cigarette he'd put out on it had left no damage at all. You could have knocked me over with a feather. I don't use my Leica lenses as ashtrays (I'm a non-smoker), nor do I let anyone else, but this display...and the outstanding quality of the photos that Leica lenses make possible have kept me coming back to Leica for my lenses.

 

True story!

[earleygallery]

It's easy enough to test for yourself whether you see any difference in image quality using a filter. Bear in mind that a filter sits in front of the lens and doesn't form part of the optics of the lens as such, also why filters were often gelatin rather than glass. I'd rather clean a filter than a lens element.

[Guest AgXlove]

Filters do indeed degrade image quality. The crux of the matter is: Do filters degrade image quality to a degree that is, in the final print, detectable to the human eye?

 

If you stick with the best filters made - Leica, B+W or Heliopan - probably not.

 

JMHO, but I can see no logic in investing $5000 in a new 35/1.4 ASPH and then putting a $15 filter on it.

[earleygallery]

One could also say that there's not much point in investing in a leica lens and then not using a tripod. More likely to 'degrade' image quality than a filter!

[bybrett]

Filters affect night shots more than day shots.

[wildlightphoto]

I don't use protective filters if I can avoid them (the 280mm f/4 APO has a protective front plate built into it).

 

Are they a good idea? This is something you'll have to decide for yourself. Some of us fear image degradation, no matter how small, others fear the chance of damage to the lens, no matter how slight. As any politician knows, fear is a much more powerful motivator than reason. IMHO, whatever keeps you using your camera is the right choice.

[jonoslack]

If I added up all the money which I have NOT SPENT on adding filters to my lenses, it would pay for several new front elements, but I've never damaged a front element (touch wood).

 

So, in my experience they are a bad investment, and so, if there's any doubt as to whether they affect the image quality or not, it's obviously better not to use them

[lct]

Problem with filters i never know for sure to which extent they will cause flare, ghost images and the like so i don't use them for anything else than protection against sand or water if need be. Also to cut out IR in tungsten mode from time to time.

[Shadow Blaster]

In my opinion the protective value of a good filter such as B+W or Heliopan far outweighs any possible degradation. I'm with Andy Barton on this. John S.

[zlatkob]

In my opinion the protective value of a good filter such as B+W or Heliopan far outweighs any possible degradation. I'm with Andy Barton on this. John S.

I agree, especially if you photograph in environments where the lens is likely to get dirty, dusty or smudged. I use B+W filters with the MRC coating and they wipe off very quickly and easily.

[masjah]

I don't use protective filters if I can avoid them (the 280mm f/4 APO has a protective front plate built into it).

 

Are they a good idea? This is something you'll have to decide for yourself. Some of us fear image degradation, no matter how small, others fear the chance of damage to the lens, no matter how slight. As any politician knows, fear is a much more powerful motivator than reason. IMHO, whatever keeps you using your camera is the right choice.

 

Wise words! I'm a filter user, which probably tells you all you need to know about me!

[andybarton]

So, in my experience they are a bad investment:)

 

Like insurance...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[budrichard]

Since I purchased my Leica M3 about 1985 and for my current ASPH lenses used with my M7's and M6, every lens has had the appropriate Leitz/Leica UV filter attached. I go anywhere I want with my equipment and don't worry about damage, I don't use any camera cases. I can usually get a body fixed but damage to a front element is not something that can be dealt with and repeated cleaning of the front element is not something I wish to concern myself about.

I also don't use a tripod with my Leitz/Leica lenses. These are opinons that individuals have and don't require snide responses.-Dick