UVa vs. UVa/IR Filters for Leica 6-bit Lenses

[JazzDoc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd appreciate your weighing in on this question, people:

 

For my Leica lenses (all four of which are 6-bit coded) should I be after a UVa or UVa/IR filter, mostly for "protective" purposes? Beyond protective, are there optical advantages to the latter? (The camera's an M9).

 

Also, does it make a big difference (advantage) if the filter's made by Leica?

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[doubice]

Your M9 does not need UV/IR filters (unlike the M8 or M8.2) so, it is the UVa filter that you should use IF you want to use filters.

 

The jury is out on use of UV filters - some (like myself during my film days) have always used them to protect the lens. Some claim that they're not needed because the latest Leica lenses filter out UV rays. My reasoning is that it is much cheaper to replace a filter with scratches than it is to replace a front element with cleaning marks......

 

As to whether there is any advantage to using Leica UV filters - I don't believe Leica makes their filters anymore; they used to, but I don't believe that to be the case now. When I received my free UV/IR filters for the M8, they came from Japan.....

 

I think that a filter by any good quality manufacturer will be of equal or better quality to original Leica filters - B+W, Hoya HMC, Heliopan etc. - those are all excellent filters.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[kokoshawnuff]

If you're looking purely for protection look at the B+W Natural Clear MRC Filters. Reasonably priced and no 'image degredation'

[JazzDoc]

Thanks a million, Jan.

I thought I'd read somewhere that since the M series went digital with the M8, that the IR component might have something to do with cutting down on color fringing (CA) on 6-bit coded lenses. Might've been in that book by Brian Bower, not certain. Anyway, that's why I ask.

[JazzDoc]

If you're looking purely for protection look at the B+W Natural Clear MRC Filters. Reasonably priced and no 'image degredation'

Beautiful. Thanks.

[lars_bergquist]

Here's the dope: UV/IR filters are not needed by the M9 because the sensor filter cuts out IR radiation. UVa filters are not needed by any lenses later than about 1960 because they do not transmit UV radiation. Simple protection is another matter. That depends on the hood design – a deep screw-on hood with a front protection cap makes a filter unnecessary for mechanical protection. My 35mm Summilux ASPH v.2 and my 21mm Super-Elmar have them, so I use no filters on them. My 50mm Summilux ASPH, 90mm Elmarit-M and 135mm Apo-Telyt have slide-out hoods so they carry filters.

 

Using a UV/IR filter on a wide angle lens introduces a greenish colour shift toward the corners, the more noticeable the wider the lens is. The firmware of the M8/M8.2 compensates for that, but that of the M9 does not, because the M9 is not supposed to work with these filters. This does not happen with longer lenses, but the colour balance can shift perceptibly compared to the filterless state or an UVa, with some subjects like skin or greenery. Such local shifts are difficult or impossible to correct in PP, because they are not overall shifts. You should be aware of this problem.

 

The facts above have little or nothing to do with coding or no coding, because with the M9, coding is relevant only to different issues, viz. ordinary luminance vignetting, and the 'rededge' phenomenon with certain wide angle lenses. The latter was not an issue with the M8 because of its smaller image angle.

 

My recommendation would be not to use UV/IR filters on the M9, at least not for general photography (there may conceivably exist purposes where such a filter would be useful, but I cannot think of one).

 

LB

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using a UV/IR filter on a wide angle lens introduces a greenish colour shift toward the corners, the more noticeable the wider the lens is.

I've tried this (because when I got the 21mm Super Elmar I only had UV/IR filters) and Lars is quite right, although the effect is not all that pronounced sometimes - it does cause real colour shift problems if significant post processing of an image is undertaken though. I've now got some UVa filters (including an as-new, used one for £25 - so there are reasonably priced Leica filters available) to offer protection - something I value having had a lens fall onto concrete and smash the filter but the lens glass all survived and the subsequent repair cost was for the focus only.

[jaapv]

The M9 is perfectly fine without filters or with protective 007 filters (tougher and less aberrations and flare) but on longer lenses, say 50 mm upwards, I still find I get slightly better colours in high-IR light when I use 486 filters

[JazzDoc]

Here's the dope: UV/IR filters are not needed by the M9 because the sensor filter cuts out IR radiation. UVa filters are not needed by any lenses later than about 1960 because they do not transmit UV radiation. Simple protection is another matter. That depends on the hood design – a deep screw-on hood with a front protection cap makes a filter unnecessary for mechanical protection. My 35mm Summilux ASPH v.2 and my 21mm Super-Elmar have them, so I use no filters on them. My 50mm Summilux ASPH, 90mm Elmarit-M and 135mm Apo-Telyt have slide-out hoods so they carry filters.

 

Using a UV/IR filter on a wide angle lens introduces a greenish colour shift toward the corners, the more noticeable the wider the lens is. The firmware of the M8/M8.2 compensates for that, but that of the M9 does not, because the M9 is not supposed to work with these filters. This does not happen with longer lenses, but the colour balance can shift perceptibly compared to the filterless state or an UVa, with some subjects like skin or greenery. Such local shifts are difficult or impossible to correct in PP, because they are not overall shifts. You should be aware of this problem.

 

The facts above have little or nothing to do with coding or no coding, because with the M9, coding is relevant only to different issues, viz. ordinary luminance vignetting, and the 'rededge' phenomenon with certain wide angle lenses. The latter was not an issue with the M8 because of its smaller image angle.

 

My recommendation would be not to use UV/IR filters on the M9, at least not for general photography (there may conceivably exist purposes where such a filter would be useful, but I cannot think of one).

 

LB

 

Lars, your reply should be a "sticky" in the FAQ section! Great information, for which I thank you very much!

 

I've tried this (because when I got the 21mm Super Elmar I only had UV/IR filters) and Lars is quite right, although the effect is not all that pronounced sometimes - it does cause real colour shift problems if significant post processing of an image is undertaken though. I've now got some UVa filters (including an as-new, used one for £25 - so there are reasonably priced Leica filters available) to offer protection - something I value having had a lens fall onto concrete and smash the filter but the lens glass all survived and the subsequent repair cost was for the focus only.

Thank you. I'd tend to be less gutsy with my $$$ Leica lenses than with my Canons.

**By the way - what's the story with vignetting with that 21mm Super Elmar if you have a filter on?

 

The M9 is perfectly fine without filters or with protective 007 filters (tougher and less aberrations and flare) but on longer lenses, say 50 mm upwards, I still find I get slightly better colours in high-IR light when I use 486 filters

Thanks, I need to familiarize myself with the numerical filter jargon - I'll be back to re-read this!

 

--

 

Thanks, people.

[pgk]

**By the way - what's the story with vignetting with that 21mm Super Elmar if you have a filter on?

Not had it long but not much vignetting (my previous 21mm is the Super-Angulon though which does vignette!) so far. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/222520-super-elmar-demo-2.html post 30 is a shot with the UV/IR on and I can see a little colour shift in the corners (I've darkened the sky in post so its not too helpful a shot for vignetting but there isn't a lot.

[JazzDoc]

Not had it long but not much vignetting (my previous 21mm is the Super-Angulon though which does vignette!) so far. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/222520-super-elmar-demo-2.html post 30 is a shot with the UV/IR on and I can see a little colour shift in the corners (I've darkened the sky in post so its not too helpful a shot for vignetting but there isn't a lot.

Thanks, Paul. I like that shot (#30)!

[algrove]

I came from the UV/skylight/clear filter lens protection school, but I know pros who would not use filters under any situation due to the potential for negative effects filters could have on their digital images.

 

I often go the the SW USA and due to the sand/wind hazard there, I tend to use and leave on my UVa filters on lenses I use with my M9. I will go again to the SW soon. I must say though I will not be using any filter on my new 18 SEM since the filter holder for it could allow for stray and reflected sunlight (which is highly prevalent in the SW) to get in between filter and the front lens element which means to me using this setup could be worse for images than having no filter at all, in my opinion.

 

The only direct fit filter that I know of for the 18 SEM lens is a Leica UV/IR filter which fits between the protruding front element and lens hood. This lens/filter combination is a no-no for use on the M9 from what I understand, particularly since it is a wide angle lens.

[jaapv]

 

Thanks, I need to familiarize myself with the numerical filter jargon - I'll be back to re-read this!

 

--

 

Thanks, people.

Sorry. 007 = Protective, 486 = UV/IR cut.

[lars_bergquist]

Both '007' and '486' are B+W product codes. I can vouch for the 007 filter, I use one on my Apo-Telyt, and B+W filters (made by a division of Schneider-Kreuznach by the way) are pretty well the Rolls Royces of the filter business.

 

Regarding UV/IR/486 filters, I should add that these filters can give rise to multiple strong reflections of light sources in the image field. Another good reason to avoid them. See the picture.

 

LB

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!

[JazzDoc]

Thanks, guys. And great example there, Lars.