ALD Posted May 22, 2012 Share #1  Posted May 22, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Folks  I have a brand new summilux 35mm Fle sitting in the cupboard waiting for my M9 to arrive. Can somebody please give a me a tip on which filter to use on the lens so that I NEVER scratch the front of the lens and clean it only once in its life just before I put the filter on. I would prefer something that will not demean the quality of the lens capabilities? Thanks in advance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Hi ALD, Take a look here Protecting the summilux 35mm FLE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jpattison Posted May 22, 2012 Share #2 Â Posted May 22, 2012 If in the UK... Leica E46 UV Filter Black 13004 Â You can afford it, you bought the lens and an M9 Â John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 22, 2012 Share #3 Â Posted May 22, 2012 Yes, or E46 B+W MRC equivalent. Or neither and avoid getting your front element dirty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted May 22, 2012 Share #4 Â Posted May 22, 2012 I'd suggest the B+W 010 UV Haze MRC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 22, 2012 Share #5 Â Posted May 22, 2012 There are no certainities in life. I once scratched the front element of an expensive lens by a broken filter.. The best filter for your purpose is a B&W 007 "protective" filter. Clear glass, high-impact for maximum protection and optimized for minimum image degradation. Â Having said that, a lens is a tool to be used. If you want to keep it like a precious gem it is best to put it in a safe and never take it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfx Posted May 22, 2012 Share #6 Â Posted May 22, 2012 I bought a Leica E46 UV filter for this lens although I prefer to use B+W MRC 007s for front element protection. The reason was that the 35 Summilux FLE's inside hood diameter was just slightly too narrow to fit the B+W (and other filters such as Heliopan) inside it. Â Leica has reportedly widened the inside diameter of the hood enough to accommodate B+W and other filters (the problem may have been caused by the thickness of its coating), but officially they aren't confirming this. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 22, 2012 Share #7 Â Posted May 22, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) +1 Leica E46 UV filter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted May 22, 2012 Share #8  Posted May 22, 2012 I bought a Leica E46 UV filter for this lens although I prefer to use B+W MRC 007s for front element protection. The reason was that the 35 Summilux FLE's inside hood diameter was just slightly too narrow to fit the B+W (and other filters such as Heliopan) inside it.  Leica has reportedly widened the inside diameter of the hood enough to accommodate B+W and other filters (the problem may have been caused by the thickness of its coating), but officially they aren't confirming this. Rich  I have no problem with B+W UV on few months old 35 Summilux FLE, so it seems any problem there was has been sorted. The smallest trace of suitable lubricant does make the hood screw on much more smoothly though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALD Posted May 22, 2012 Author Share #9 Â Posted May 22, 2012 Thank you all very much. I will look out for the b&w 007. I understand the whole lens is a tool thing but suppose I should get insurance any idea who ensures Leica cameras in Australia against damage? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enenrf Posted May 22, 2012 Share #10 Â Posted May 22, 2012 I use Leica E46 UVa on my 35 lux FLE I remember I tried the B+W but not fit very well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted May 22, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted May 22, 2012 Why would you damage the front element in the first place? Â OK poking it into a rusty fence is a bad idea but modern lenses, which presumably includes this specimen, have very resilient coatings. Use a neutral filter if you have to, better still is not to clean it all too often - and if with due precautions. Personally I only use chamois leather for lens cleaning, despite all the microfibre stuff. The latter are good enough for my spectacles. Cleaning interval 1x per year at most? Maybe less frequent. Â It is worth bearing in mind is that lenses will be changed, and there is a rear element as well. No protective filters there. Many (not me, I admit) put lenses in the bag without rear/front lens caps attached at all. That is hardly a dust free environment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 22, 2012 Share #12 Â Posted May 22, 2012 +1 with me. Â And if I used a polariser more often, I would not hesitate to use that lens (which I do own) 'naked' trusting to only the sturdy hood and the hood cap for protection. Â The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted May 22, 2012 Share #13 Â Posted May 22, 2012 +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted May 22, 2012 Share #14 Â Posted May 22, 2012 The pro/con debate of "protection filters" has raged as long as they've existed. Truly a question for the ages. Â In all this time no definitive argument for or against has been reached... So let's not try again now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 22, 2012 Share #15  Posted May 22, 2012 The pro/con debate of "protection filters" has raged as long as they've existed. Truly a question for the ages. In all this time no definitive argument for or against has been reached... So let's not try again now.  This isn't a debate . The OP simply asked what filter to use to protect the front lens element. Filter-users only need apply:rolleyes:   Of course if he 'NEVER' wants to scratch the front element (as he asks) then he will need to NEVER take the lens at home and NEVER take it out of it's original packaging, or NEVER take the lens cap off because a strong enough impact will of course risk fracturing the filter and damaging the front element;)  He did ask about filters demeaning the image but lets face it, even for those who believe that they do, any effect from a good filter is non-existent or minimal in all but the most unusual situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 22, 2012 Share #16  Posted May 22, 2012 I'm both a filter user and a non-filter user so I guess I have half a right to respond  so that I NEVER scratch the front of the lens and clean it only once in its life just before I put the filter on.  Over the years I've had the same thought as the above-quoted cross my mind. I've found that there's a distinct relationship between the cost of the lens and the frequency of the thought. For some lenses I've tried to do exactly what ALD wants to do. I've, nevertheless, never managed to keep a filter screwed on permanently. There could be the nagging thought that hmm, hasn't something crept in under the filter? Or, did I really manage to remove all dust? Or, is the front element really as clean as it could be? And then I've unscrewed the filter.  A good hood protects in almost all circumstances as well as a filter. And it has the added benefit of not messing with the light. Plus a banged-up hood looks cool.  Still if do you want a filter, get a multi-coated one. B+W filters are good.  Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted May 22, 2012 Share #17 Â Posted May 22, 2012 My wife turned and her watch hit my noctilux. If I had not had an ND filter on it the lens would have been scratched. The filter got a little scratch. So you never know what is going to happen. If someone wants to protect their gear then let them do it. Nuff said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted May 22, 2012 Share #18 Â Posted May 22, 2012 Hello ALD, Â Welcome to the Forum. Â + 1 to both Lars & philipus. The primary use of a rigid lens hood is as a protector for a lens's mount & optics. There are times when it works better than a filter. It's use as a flare suppressor is secondary. Â Best Regards, Â Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALD Posted May 22, 2012 Author Share #19 Â Posted May 22, 2012 Does anybody know the exact code and description of the b&w clear filter. They are difficult to find otherwise on eBay or camera shops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 23, 2012 Share #20  Posted May 23, 2012 Hello ALD, The primary use of a rigid lens hood is as a protector for a lens's mount & optics. There are times when it works better than a filter. It's use as a flare suppressor is secondary.  Hence double protection. I wouldn't use a filter but not use the hood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.