jonoslack Posted June 22, 2010 Share #21 Posted June 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Like insurance... Hi Andy - you're damned right Don't insure anything you can't afford to buy again! But if you can afford to buy it again, and you're careful, you're a mug to pay for the insurance. Especially as it's effectiveness is extremely doubtful! We did a little sum with respect to our office Mac's - we haven't bought any extended warranty for the last 10 years - the money we've saved would buy 3 or 4 new computers by now - with 1 paid for repair (£350) during that time. . . . . which wouldn't have been covered anyway as it was the result of an accident. House insurance . . . I have Health insurance . . . I have Car insurance . . . I have front element insurance (of doubtful use) . . . I don't have As I say, the money I haven't spent on these filters over the last few years would repair a front element or two - so I'm in pocket, and haven't had to think about any effects (I agree that in most daylight situations they aren't going to be significant - at night reflections can be a pain) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 Hi jonoslack, Take a look here Filters on Leica lenses... compromises in picture quality?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted June 22, 2010 Share #22 Posted June 22, 2010 I don't use protective filters if I can avoid them (the 280mm f/4 APO has a protective front plate built into it). That was the only front element ever damaged in my hands Cost of replacement about ten years ago - over 500$ then I think now, well over 1000 , maybe 1500 $........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted June 22, 2010 Share #23 Posted June 22, 2010 That was the only front element ever damaged in my hands Cost of replacement about ten years ago - over 500$ then I think now, well over 1000 , maybe 1500 $........ US$1600 four years ago, and the 'protective' plate was un-damaged Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posto 6 Posted February 18, 2011 Share #24 Posted February 18, 2011 US$1600 four years ago, and the 'protective' plate was un-damaged I just got one of these wonderful lenses today- finally! Would you suggest any particular protection as I will use mine quite extensively near sandy beaches and salty air? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfx Posted February 19, 2011 Share #25 Posted February 19, 2011 What about the difference between a quality clear protective filter such as B+W 007 and a UV (010) filter? I have the former on all of my lenses, but was forced to buy a Leica UV filter for my new 35mm Lux ASPH because of the hood problem. What's the difference optically between a quality clear 007 and UV 010 filter kept on at all times for protection? Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 19, 2011 Share #26 Posted February 19, 2011 What about the difference between a quality clear protective filter such as B+W 007 and a UV (010) filter? [ ... ] Rich The UV filter blocks UV radiation that the B+W 007 passes – and which all Leitz and Leica lenses have blocked since the early 1960's. The unorganic substances in the UV filter glass that absorbs the UV radiation do not do anything to the light wavelengths that are passed, as far a as I know. B+W have a new product and they do advertise it, of course. Much of the sentiment against filters stem from the time when there was a great many substandard filters on the market. Many of them were black-and-white colour filters – yellow, green – that were coloured gelatine snadwiched between glass plates, not always with the requisite care. So for many years Leica advised against filters. But I have seen lots of lenses from those years and the majority of them have cleaning scratches – some of them even on inside surfaces! The most common glass damage is from over-enthusiastic and under-informed cleaning. Better clean a filter than a lens. The old man with the microfiber cloth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 19, 2011 Share #27 Posted February 19, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you damage a lens it may be a write off if they dont have spares, if you have a late 5cm cron with telescopic hood and you drop it and the camera the probability is you discard lens, yes you might get away wih a reapir at Solms. If instead you have a filter and one or the Chinese inverted cone screw in copies on your cron, you may only need to threw away the hood, my friend is a cheapsgate he strainghtened the hood in an engineering vice. It is not like insurance you can reuse the filter and hood, for ever, and then sell it in my friends case even after a 'claim'. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted February 19, 2011 Share #28 Posted February 19, 2011 There is no doubt that even the best filters degrade image quaility.Saying other wise is akin to burying your head in the sand. If adding more glass was ggod for the optical fomula than I am sure the lens designers would have included it Make a big print 30-40, one with a filter and one without and than you will know. Now in saying that I, personally love when buying a used lens it has a filter on it. It's part of my buying used lens ritual that immedaty take off and toss it in box with all the other protective filters I have collected over the years. It makes me smile thinking about them getting all scatched up, while the front of my lens are naked and bare:D For the most part, I agree about the hoods giving adaquate protection. However some times the lens is design is such that no hood is possible. One of my pals recent bought a Nikkor 8mm 2.8 and has joined the fish -eye fun. So he is at the aquarium and while gettig close to the glass of the fish tank he inadvertantly smashes the exposed front element into the two inche glass. Not a scatch and no smashy, smashy I recently saw a cheap Canon 50 1.8 being smashed with a hammer directly on the front element with little or no damage. While not something I would do, it shows that lenses are a lot tougher than many think. Another thing is a few scatches do nothing to dedrade image quaility what so ever. I have personally seen a Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AIS used by a local newspaper photographer mny years ago that had a "chunk out of it the size of a silver dollar and he was getting front page after front page with the lens. A few scatches... meaningless for IQ. Now you have to use common sense. If your around hazardous enviroments like sand or salt using a filter may be worth the loss in IQ. http://rogaltacdesign.smugmug.com/Other/Photographic-Gear/AAC2092-2/652259773_9w5zS-L-2.jpg http://rogaltacdesign.smugmug.com/Other/Photographic-Gear/AAC3360/781535317_qi4at-L.jpg http://rogaltacdesign.smugmug.com/Other/Photographic-Gear/DSC2389/961811684_riXJh-L.jpg Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 19, 2011 Share #29 Posted February 19, 2011 Somewhat curious to pay little fortunes for Leica lenses and degrade them with a filter. A good hood does suffice in most cases. A filter may be usefull to protect lenses against sand or sea spray though. Let alone the red nose of M8 users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdtaylor Posted February 19, 2011 Share #30 Posted February 19, 2011 Last week received back a 90 APO that had the front lens badly scratched when I handed a lens to my wife to hold and she had her wedding ring reversed- diamonds definitely scratch Leica glass easily. Filter would have definitely been cheaper than the $600 to replace it. My daughter had dropped 2 lenses, both with filters- the filters trashed, both times it save the glass and the filter ring. Guess she was lucky they both hit on the filter. I tend not to use filters when I am out and about taking pictures. I do carry a M9 in my briefcase, and then I do leave a filter on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdtaylor Posted February 19, 2011 Share #31 Posted February 19, 2011 We did a little sum with respect to our office Mac's - we haven't bought any extended warranty for the last 10 years - the money we've saved would buy 3 or 4 new computers by now - with 1 paid for repair (£350) during that time. . . . . which wouldn't have been covered anyway as it was the result of an accident. Have had 15 to 30 macs since 1988, and I absolutely agree with your statement. the only major problems have been hard drives and graphic cards, and those are easily user replaced and cheap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 20, 2011 Share #32 Posted February 20, 2011 Leica in it's own instructions suggests that a filter not be used on the Noctilux, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 20, 2011 Share #33 Posted February 20, 2011 I've seen people who don't use filters changing lenses. First they blow dust from the rear element and attach the lens. Then they blow dust off the front element, then they breath on the front element and wipe it with a lens cloth that they carefully take out of its protective packet. Then they blow and brush the front element again. Then they put the brush and cloth away. Then, when all is clean and in its assigned place in the camera bag they raise the camera to their eye. Of course by now they've forgotten what they wanted to photograph, or the night has come So I use filters (B&W MRC) for no other reason than I don't need to mess around with Leica lens caps, and if necessary they can be cleaned very quickly and effectively even with the hem of a tee shirt. Given the 'fast action' mantra on LUF and RFF of daring hardcore street shooters exploiting the Leica ethos to the max I'm surprised more people aren't as practical . Me, I often use my M in slow motion on a tripod and still think a naked front element is a PITA. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 20, 2011 Share #34 Posted February 20, 2011 I've seen people who don't use filters changing lenses. First they blow dust... Then they blow dust... then they breath on the front element and wipe it with a lens cloth... Then they blow and brush the front element again... There is a name for such compulsive disorders, something like OCD i believe. Usual therapy consists in doing something dirty, as remove a filter for example, and then take photographs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismon Posted February 20, 2011 Share #35 Posted February 20, 2011 Peter, I'd use a UVa filter without hesitation if the situation called for it ( a dangerous environment to the lens). The question is iffy when shooting into strong light sources. Under normal conditions, I have noticed no degradation in sharpness below 100X magnification (like an 8x12 foot print) using Leitz filters. I made a test print rating film/developer combinations. Here is an example shot with a pre-asph 50 Smmilux @F/4 with a Leitz UVa filter. I can see minute details in the crop (the full frame is a contact print). That's sharp enough for me. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/124285-filters-on-leica-lenses-compromises-in-picture-quality/?do=findComment&comment=1594320'>More sharing options...
Xmas Posted February 20, 2011 Share #36 Posted February 20, 2011 When there is a strong light source in frame you can get very visible effects which will not be present without the filter, the UV/IR interference filters are the worst offenders especially when used on a digital camera. Damed it you do damed if your dont... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfx Posted February 21, 2011 Share #37 Posted February 21, 2011 Did you shoot the same scene without the UVa filter to compare both images? Otherwise, I suspect it would be very tough to judge the filter's effect. Rich Peter,I'd use a UVa filter without hesitation if the situation called for it ( a dangerous environment to the lens). The question is iffy when shooting into strong light sources. Under normal conditions, I have noticed no degradation in sharpness below 100X magnification (like an 8x12 foot print) using Leitz filters. I made a test print rating film/developer combinations. Here is an example shot with a pre-asph 50 Smmilux @F/4 with a Leitz UVa filter. I can see minute details in the crop (the full frame is a contact print). That's sharp enough for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismon Posted February 21, 2011 Share #38 Posted February 21, 2011 Sorry Rich, that was an old test of different film/dev. combos. Panatomic-X in Rodinal was my standard, but this combination only proved to me that Leica lenses are better than we will ever need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted February 21, 2011 Share #39 Posted February 21, 2011 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. When I started 35mm photography the filter on the front was needed to cut the over sensitivity of slide films to UV light, especially the Ektachromes which (IMHO) needed a Skylight rather than a UV, I stuck to Kodachrome mostly, and when I got the Leicas I found the UVa was ideal. The filters have been on ever since, maybe the Fuji films would manage without, but they keep my clumsy fingers off the front elements Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
400TX Posted February 22, 2011 Share #40 Posted February 22, 2011 I've seen people who don't use filters changing lenses. First they blow dust from the rear element and attach the lens. Then they blow dust off the front element, then they breath on the front element and wipe it with a lens cloth that they carefully take out of its protective packet. Then they blow and brush the front element again. Then they put the brush and cloth away. Then, when all is clean and in its assigned place in the camera bag they raise the camera to their eye. Of course by now they've forgotten what they wanted to photograph, or the night has come Steve A few hundred repetitions of that ritual and the lens coating will be trashed - which is why I keep actual cleaning of my front & rear elements using a lens cloth to an absolute minimum. I don't worry about the occasional use of a quality lens brush to remove dust particles, although compressed air is better provided you are careful to not soak your front element with the liquid propellant. I have protective filters for my lenses but rarely use them. I use the lens hoods 100% of the time though. Unless you are in some really poor weather conditions or in wind driven sand, dust or sea spray, a lens hood usually provides adequate protection. One exception would be in street photography or photojournalism - if I were shooting in the middle of a scrum of people at arm's length or closer, I would put on a protective filter along with the lens hood. If you stick with top shelf filters made by Leica, B+W or Heliopan, image degradation caused by the filter is pretty much a non-issue in practical terms. Could you find degradation using a microscope? Possibly. Could you find degradation looking at a 16x20 print with the naked eye? Highly unlikely. As someone else pointed out, not using a tripod will cause more image degradation than using a high quality UV filter will. Using as high a shutter speed as possible will help minimize image degradation due to camera movement. When shooting hand held, I try to work with shutter speeds of lens focal length times a factor of 2 to 3 (1/60 for a 28mm, 1/125 for a 35mm or 50mm, 1/250 for a 90mm). Of course, that is sometimes not possible depending on lighting, film ISO, etc. Apologies if everyone already is aware of the above - it is not my intent to lecture. I included alot of it for the less experienced among our ranks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.