Jump to content

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


PeterSchlicht

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 :o

 

Gerry

Since about 1950 all Leica lenses are effectively UV filtered by the use of Absorban as lens cement, or sometimes by special coating. Unless one is shooting on the top of Mt. Everest or in the Andes, UV filters have no function for cutting out UV light.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Since about 1950 all Leica lenses are effectively UV filtered by the use of Absorban as lens cement, or sometimes by special coating. Unless one is shooting on the top of Mt. Everest or in the Andes, UV filters have no function for cutting out UV light.
Slighly confused here Jaap, in another thread you demonstrated that the M8 not only does IR but also UV photography. Was the latter done with non Leica lenses, or is the amount of UV very low so you need a tripod? Just curious. I take your word for it that modern Leica lenses (>1950) do not "need" a UV filter.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My tests with high rez film indicate 2% loss. The biggest problem is flare from filters. It appears in shots when you don`t expect it.

 

I did drop a 90 2.0 on the filter thread edge. The filter broke, the filter rim bent, but the lens was unscathed.

 

Same with a Nikkor the had a heavy dslr behind it. Destroyed filter and rim, but the lens got a damaged helicle. I got it repaired.

Without the filter, the lens would have been gone.

 

Stuff happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My tests with high rez film indicate 2% loss. The biggest problem is flare from filters. It appears in shots when you don`t expect it.

 

I did drop a 90 2.0 on the filter thread edge. The filter broke, the filter rim bent, but the lens was unscathed.

 

Same with a Nikkor the had a heavy dslr behind it. Destroyed filter and rim, but the lens got a damaged helicle. I got it repaired.

Without the filter, the lens would have been gone.

 

Stuff happens.

Hi

 

No one ever drops a camera but from the 2nd hand lenses in shops, lots of people hit the filter rims with engineering hammers.

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since about 1950 all Leica lenses are effectively UV filtered by the use of Absorban as lens cement, or sometimes by special coating. Unless one is shooting on the top of Mt. Everest or in the Andes, UV filters have no function for cutting out UV light.

 

That may be the theory, but in practice its not what I experienced, Ektachrome without at least a UVa went horribly blue in the hills and on the beaches of the UK!

 

Gerry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slighly confused here Jaap, in another thread you demonstrated that the M8 not only does IR but also UV photography. Was the latter done with non Leica lenses, or is the amount of UV very low so you need a tripod? Just curious. I take your word for it that modern Leica lenses (>1950) do not "need" a UV filter.
I used a Summarit 50/1.5 from 1951....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My tests with high rez film indicate 2% loss. The biggest problem is flare from filters. It appears in shots when you don`t expect it.

 

I did drop a 90 2.0 on the filter thread edge. The filter broke, the filter rim bent, but the lens was unscathed.

 

Same with a Nikkor the had a heavy dslr behind it. Destroyed filter and rim, but the lens got a damaged helicle. I got it repaired.

Without the filter, the lens would have been gone.

 

Stuff happens.

 

I find that good quality multi-coated filters are pretty resistant to causing flare and other unwanted reflections these days. And for those times where you suspect that they may cause a problem, you can easily remove them for a while. :)

 

I fully agree with you regarding the value of filters as sacrificial lens protectors though. Over the years I've managed to ding a few filters, but never damaged a lens. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghost images with a multicoated 'protective' filter:

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

No LCT, I thought we were talking about loss of image quality in 'normal' use. We all know about potential for reflections in night photography, especially with shiny reflective digital sensors reflecting off the filter!

 

Now, can you show us an example of a photo under more typical daylight conditions, with and without filters, to demonstrate the awful loss in quality when using the filter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...