Protecting the summilux 35mm FLE

[Jager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not to be pedantic, but the OP asked which filter to use... "that will not demean the quality of the lens."

 

There is no such filter.

[MarkP]

To be pedantic, he asked...

primarily for a filter to protect the lens and then...

"preferably a filter that will not demean the quality of the lens":)

[Messsucherkamera]

Regarding the original question, the first choice would be the Leica UV filter, followed by the B+W UV filter.

 

Heliopan also makes decent filters - Schott glass set in brass filter rings, like B+W.

[sblitz]

whats the problem with taking a micro cloth and wiping the lens? is the coating that fragile?

[marknorton]

A microfiber cloth is fine providing there's no grit in there to grind away at the coating. The best cleaning is no cleaning.

 

Similarly, the best filter is no filter - I gave up using them long ago except for extreme conditions and salt spray. However, I always use lens caps front and back when the lens is in the bag and I rely on the lens hood as the first defence against front element damage while the lens is in use.

[IkarusJohn]

A microfiber cloth is fine providing there's no grit in there to grind away at the coating. The best cleaning is no cleaning.

 

Similarly, the best filter is no filter - I gave up using them long ago except for extreme conditions and salt spray. However, I always use lens caps front and back when the lens is in the bag and I rely on the lens hood as the first defence against front element damage while the lens is in use.

 

+1

[Washington]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not know the configuration of this lens.... but I find some really well made

lens hoods with caps that fit the outside of the hood. Neat and rugged-metal!

[philipus]

Hi ALD

 

I don't know where you're located but here in Europe there's a pretty good filter dealer at Foto Huppert (as an example).

 

The 007 filter is a clear filter, i.e. simply a glass surface (or actually two of course) which has been multi-coated. Here's a BH Photo search for the B+W 007 filter.

 

The 010 filter is a UV filter. This means that it absorbs ultraviolet light which can cause a blueish cast in daylight images particularly. Here's a BH Photo search for the B+W 010 filter.

 

Now, one can discuss whether adding a further two glass surfaces in front of a lens will affect image quality to such an extent that it is a consideration for one's photography because affect it they will. If you search on the internet you'll notice this is a topic that there are many, and strong, opinions about. To a certain extent the choice also depends on whether one uses film or digital. Digital sensors are less (or perhaps even not) sensitive to UV rays than film. And modern films are better than films used to be, too.

 

I am predominantly a film photographer and haven't noticed any real image quality "degradation" (to use a strongish term) from using either UV filters (or Skylight filters for that matter) when I used them before. Nevertheless, nowadays I'm not using them but rely on the lens hood.

 

It all depends on one's feelings, really, and it is certainly natural to want to protect an expensive lens like the 35 FLE (even though it has a good hood). If you do go for a filter, ensure it is a high-quality one with good multi-coating, which will reduce the risk of flare. Speaking of scratches, though, I have a 90mm Elmarit-M that has a very clearly visible circular scratch, and a pretty deep one at that, on the front element. It has absolutely no impact on image quality.

 

Hope it helps

Cheers

Philip

[Washington]

Yes, I use good UV filters too and they make no difference in-so-far as image quality

goes. Under certain lighting conditions (usually without hood) the filter being way

in front of a recessed front lens element, will cause flare. No big deal.

[ALD]

Hi Folks

 

I have one more question, I have a new summilux 35mm fle.

I bought the giotto lens cleaning set a couple of years back and cleaned the lens before putting the also cleaned B+W 46 MRC 007 M Clear Filter 1069110 (which arrived today) onto it?

 

Upon cleaning the front and back of the lens and filter and shining a torch through the lens I saw numerous dust particles in the torch light.

 

So is my understanding correct that Leica itself cannot deliver a lens without some dust within it? Does the dust within make any difference?

 

I know spots on the lens have appeared on my images?

 

At any rate hopefully tomorrow my M9 will arrive.

[jaapv]

 

The 010 filter is a UV filter. This means that it absorbs ultraviolet light which can cause a blueish cast in daylight images particularly. Here's a BH Photo search for the B+W 010 filter.

 

Now, one can discuss whether adding a further two glass surfaces in front of a lens will affect image quality to such an extent that it is a consideration for one's photography because affect it they will. If you search on the internet you'll notice this is a topic that there are many, and strong, opinions about. To a certain extent the choice also depends on whether one uses film or digital. Digital sensors are less (or perhaps even not) sensitive to UV rays than film. And modern films are better than films used to be, too.

 

 

Philip, you are mistaken.

1. All Leica lenses designed after about 1955 have internal UV blocking and do not need UV filters.

2. Sensors are quite sensitive to UV light. Here is a UV shot using the Summarit 50.1.5( which is a pre- UV protection lens ( like the Jupiter lenses)) and using a UV pass filter on the M8:

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!

[CalArts 99]

Hi Folks

 

I have one more question, I have a new summilux 35mm fle.

I bought the giotto lens cleaning set a couple of years back and cleaned the lens before putting the also cleaned B+W 46 MRC 007 M Clear Filter 1069110 (which arrived today) onto it?

 

Upon cleaning the front and back of the lens and filter and shining a torch through the lens I saw numerous dust particles in the torch light.

 

So is my understanding correct that Leica itself cannot deliver a lens without some dust within it? Does the dust within make any difference?

 

I know spots on the lens have appeared on my images?

 

At any rate hopefully tomorrow my M9 will arrive.

 

Lenses can suck in air when focusing. Dust is part of the life of being a lens. You won't see any of these in your images. In fact, scratches and marks on the front element won't appear either (deep scratches can sometimes cause flare in certain instances.)

 

I wouldn't clean a lens unless it was actually dirty. Leave the lens alone and just use it. I realize it's an expensive object, but I'd stop the worrying and the cleaning, etc..

[lars_bergquist]

There was a time, in the 1960's more or less, when Leitz told Leica photographers that as filters do degrade the sharpness of the lens, they recommended against their use. There have been periods of time when simply every Leica lens from that time I encountered, had multiple cleaning scratches on their front lenses, and often on their rear lenses too. I even met one 50mm Summicron that had inside cleaning scratches, meaning that its owner had actually disassembled it and then hysterically rubbed the exposed surfaces with (probably) a used handkerchief.

 

In theory, a filter will to some extent degrade sharpness. This effect will to a large extent vary with the acceptance angle of the lens, so that wide angle lenses lose more. Except possibly in the case of some super-wides, the effect is minuscule however. But while one scratch on the front lens does not degrade lens performance much, a multitude of small cleaning scratches will certainly produce flare. And moderate amounts of dust are no big deal either. Remove it, or most of it, with a soft brush. Use a microfiber cloth, and a soft breath, on fingerprints. But keep the cloth in an envelope, and wash it at times.

 

The upshot of this is that I use a Leica UVa filter on my 35mm Summilux FLE (a B+W clear filter would also have been fine) while my 21mm Super-Elmar has none. Both lenses use the same hood and front cap, thus offering the same level of mechanical protection. I also have a 18mm Distagon however which carries a 58mm filter. That lens has a very shallow hood that offers little protection. So the reasons why I use or don't use protective filters are more psychological than technical. Meanwhile, it is well to remember that more lenses have been ruined by over-attention than by neglect – especially by cleaning neurotics. Do keep sane.

 

The old man from the Age B.C. (Before Coating)

 

P.S. Hysterical cleaning scratches on a filter will also produce flare!

[philipus]

Philip, you are mistaken.

1. All Leica lenses designed after about 1955 have internal UV blocking and do not need UV filters.

2. Sensors are quite sensitive to UV light. Here is a UV shot using the Summarit 50.1.5( which is a pre- UV protection lens ( like the Jupiter lenses)) and using a UV pass filter on the M8:

 

Thanks Jaap. I don't think I am entirely mistaken, though. The amount of filtration depends on the filter used. Compare for instance Bob Atkins's old test for Photo.net which found that filters can vary quite a bit in this respect.

 

True, there are UV filters in front of sensors but they don't filter out 100%, nor can they. It is pretty understandable why because the amount of UV rays present depends on many things, like time of the year, altitude etc. So it isn't possible to have a catch-all solution because it would affect image quality. If one has real concerns about UV rays, naturally, one would have to use a suitable filter. Most photographers, though, will not need to use one for this purpose because the pictures look good enough in almost all circumstances (or they are not discerning/knowledgable enough to tell the difference). Rather, they simply attach whatever clear-looking filter the shop keeper tells them will protect the front element.

 

Cheers

Philip