Albert Andersen Posted July 8, 2011 Share #1 Posted July 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have always used a UV filter for protection of the lens. I have just got my new Summilux 50 mm silver. The filter, silver version, is also silver inside. Do any have experience of unwanted reflections because of that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Hi Albert Andersen, Take a look here UV filter on Summilux 50 mm silver. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 8, 2011 Share #2 Posted July 8, 2011 Yes - I had a silver UV/IR filter on mine. I changed it for a black one because of the reflections on the edge. I guess I could have touched the inside up with matte black paint in retrospect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted July 8, 2011 Share #3 Posted July 8, 2011 Do you maybe have example of that reflections? I do use silver lens and filter, and didn't find any so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted July 9, 2011 Share #4 Posted July 9, 2011 I occasionally had the same problem as Jaap and in the end stopped using a filter. You could never be sure (except by looking at the preview) if you had a problem. The retractable lens hood is shallow and doesn't extend very far past the rim of the filter. Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dabow Posted July 9, 2011 Share #5 Posted July 9, 2011 The answer is a simple one - don't use a filter for lens protection All you're doing is degrading image quality and the argument for protection is a bit of a weak one. The chances are if the filter shatters it'll damage the lens anyway. My two cents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 9, 2011 Share #6 Posted July 9, 2011 Quality filters don't degrade the image and I have a 19 Elmarit-R that shows proof of what happens when a front element gets irreparable damage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dabow Posted July 9, 2011 Share #7 Posted July 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Quality filters don't degrade the image and I have a 19 Elmarit-R that shows proof of what happens when a front element gets irreparable damage. ANY glass in front of the lens degrades the image, no matter how good the quality. Just stack a few if you don't believe it. I know of someone whose expensive filter shattered when he dropped his camera bag, and the glass from the filter damaged the lens. You want to use one, fine, but thinking it has no effect on the image is simply not true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted July 9, 2011 Share #8 Posted July 9, 2011 ANY glass in front of the lens degrades the image, no matter how good the quality. Just stack a few if you don't believe it. I know of someone whose expensive filter shattered when he dropped his camera bag, and the glass from the filter damaged the lens. You want to use one, fine, but thinking it has no effect on the image is simply not true. The critical part is detectably & at night any filter is likely to be detectable as nice effects on highlights, other wise little chance. A sea gull can be very healthy, a filter can be remover and held under running tap, I have hole burnt through paint to aluminium on a Mx-5 bonnet (hood) and a tonneau cover with a hole... If you have a lens with a collapsible hood you need a filter and a 3rd party screw in hood to protect your lens. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted July 9, 2011 Share #9 Posted July 9, 2011 The never ending argument. There are reasons to use a filter, and reasons not to use a filter. Learn which is what, and when to use the filter. The main thing is don't be dogmatic, and be prepared to put on/take off the filter. Over time, no one should ALWAYS leave the filter off, nor ALWAYS leave it on. Most of the time it's a toss up, but my preference over many years and hundreds of lenses is to leave it off. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dabow Posted July 10, 2011 Share #10 Posted July 10, 2011 The never ending argument. There are reasons to use a filter, and reasons not to use a filter. Learn which is what, and when to use the filter. The main thing is don't be dogmatic, and be prepared to put on/take off the filter. Over time, no one should ALWAYS leave the filter off, nor ALWAYS leave it on. Most of the time it's a toss up, but my preference over many years and hundreds of lenses is to leave it off. Henning My point entirely, is to use a filter when you need one, not all of the time, and certainly not all of the time for protection. Of course there are times when a filter is required, either for effect or filtration. However, there is a trade-off in image quality if you're leaving a filter on permanently for no good reason other than the belief it will protect your lens should disaster strike. To each their own at the end of the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 10, 2011 Share #11 Posted July 10, 2011 It would be great if you could post some photos to demonstrate the loss of image quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dabow Posted July 10, 2011 Share #12 Posted July 10, 2011 It would be great if you could post some photos to demonstrate the loss of image quality. Search around on the web and I'm sure you'll find examples. As I don't use UV filters (except when I need to) I don't have any. My point is though that people spend a fortune on the best optical glass (especially where Leica is concerned) and then slap UV filters on the front when they're not required in the hope they'll somehow protect the lens should disaster strike. Personally, I prefer not to, thus ensuring no loss in quality, however minimal it my be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotofanatiker Posted July 10, 2011 Share #13 Posted July 10, 2011 people spend a fortune. Well, that could be a reason for using a filter, couldn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted July 10, 2011 Share #14 Posted July 10, 2011 I just took delivery of a new silver 50 Summilux yesterday, and I also bought a Leica UV filter for it. Just looking at this lens that's a big friggin piece of glass up front, and I want to give it all the protection I can. If I feel like it's detracting from image quality I will remove it (in certain circumstances), but I just cannot believe that Leica hasn't considered the use of their UV filter when designing this lens. Also my heart is telling me that considering all those little photons of light are going through 8 different elements in 5 different groups that one little piece of optical quality glass up front is going to make that big of a difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 11, 2011 Share #15 Posted July 11, 2011 Remember that all those lens surfaces and coatings have been optimized in design and production. Now, you're putting a 'one-size-fits-all' piece of glass in front of the lens. You've noticed that the built-in hood, which seems pretty efficient for the lens itself, doesn't give much extraneous-light protection for the filter surfaces. For that reason, I've bought a separate lens hood to screw into the filter and help reduce reflections. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 11, 2011 Share #16 Posted July 11, 2011 I have found that black and silver lens caps degrade the image equally. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotolebrocq Posted July 11, 2011 Share #17 Posted July 11, 2011 I use a B+W filter on mine and it needs wet cleaning quite regularly - dust and debris which just will not blow off. If you leave the filter off how do clean the lens element effectively without degrading the coatings? Tony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 11, 2011 Share #18 Posted July 11, 2011 Search around on the web and I'm sure you'll find examples. As I don't use UV filters (except when I need to) I don't have any. My point is though that people spend a fortune on the best optical glass (especially where Leica is concerned) and then slap UV filters on the front when they're not required in the hope they'll somehow protect the lens should disaster strike. Personally, I prefer not to, thus ensuring no loss in quality, however minimal it my be. Well, yesterday my lenscap went through a crack in a bridge so I had to dig out the UV filter to protect the lens in the bag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted July 12, 2011 Share #19 Posted July 12, 2011 I'm a firm believer that a lens without a filter produces the best rendition a lens can offer and that a lens hood offers not only better protection against serious damage,but also significant protection against side light flare. 18 months ago I abandoned filters all together. However, I'm reconsidering my practice as I've recently had a number of stubborn marks on the front elements of my 35 & 50 Lux lenses. Indeed this last weekend I thought that the 50's front element had a rub mark on it. I was mightily relieved when it cleared and was left wondering which images I'd taken in the period would have been spoiled by a filter and which image/s were worth risking the front element for ? I'm still unsure on this. Collapsable hoods seem to be such a great idea, but the self-collapsing variety introduce the biggest risk. I think I'll fix mine in place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.