Filters - yes or no if yes then what?

[scjohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps I have been naive but I have assumed Leica lenses are designed so carefully that filters would only screw them up. Lenses I "go to war" with in the elements -- Nikon glass in the rain or snow or sand -- I protect with filters but in the more-prestine conditions suited to cameras like the m-7 or now the m-9 (cameras not water sealed anyway) I have not used filters because i did not want anything to get between the glass and its output.

 

Have any of you considered this issue? If any of you have elected to use filters and think you have filters that work well with Leica glass, I would appreciate suggestions.

[Advertisement]

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

[kokoshawnuff]

This is a pretty common issue of contention on every photo forum. Many claim a rigid hood will protect a front element as well as a filter, but there are many instances when this just isn't the case (think a protruding branch and a camera swinging from your shoulder). I have full insurance coverage for every one of my lenses, but I wouldn't want to go through the hassle of trying to get one replaced if the solution is as easy as a filter.

 

Always get high quality filters, like B+W MRC...I use B+W 007 Clear MRC on every lens; they don't change the color and they don't change the quality that I can see (done tests and looked at 200% magnification). With filters, lenses may be more prone to flare, especially at night, but I've not seen any degradation to any image taken with filtered lenses.

[AB007]

I prefer to use filters. I use B+W filters for newer lenses and Leica filters for older lenses. For black & whites, I used Yellow filters and sometimes Red for dramatic effects. For color or digital, I generally, used UV Haze MRC. On my fast lens, I also use ND filters.

 

One time, the filter broke and saved my lens. I was lucky

[earleygallery]

Yes, typically Leica users would tell you that using a filter of any sort was 'not the Leica way' and would ruin the quality of a Leica lens. Then the M8 came along, designed to be used with UV/IR filters and everyone said what a wonderful idea that was!

 

Also with the MM users are delighted that they can use filters just like folks did back in the old days with film. Oh the novelty of trying out a red filter for the first time to get that dramatic sky effect!

 

Filters generally have a purpose - you don't need to use a UV filter with a newer Leica lens unless you wish to do so for protection purposes, but other filters are used for effect or correction. OK some of this can be done in PS but why not get it right from the start? That's a more purist, more Leica approach, surely?

[250swb]

I use very good quality UV filters for protection, and this also means I don't need to use a lens cap on them in the camera bag, so it makes changes quicker. I think the argument about a filter affecting the image quality is largely an internet concoction born of bragging rather than empirical results.

 

Steve

[k-hawinkler]

I am sure there are counter examples to your sweeping generalizing statement!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is no doubt that a filter will degrade the lens output to a certain extent, unless the lens is designed for use with a filter.

The discussion is whether that degradation is enough to be visible on a print.

[earleygallery]

There is no doubt that a filter will degrade the lens output to a certain extent, unless the lens is designed for use with a filter.

The discussion is whether that degradation is enough to be visible on a print.

 

Indeed, it is also true that handholding a camera will always mean a degree of camera shake, but again it's a question of whether any effect is going to be noticeable in the finished image.

 

It's surely the easiest thing in the world for anyone to do a 'before and after' filter test and make their own mind up, yet we see this question asked over and over and all the for and against arguments!

 

Apart from the issues of reflections in some lighting conditions, no one should worry about image degradation from using a filter.

[Guest MarcRF]

going to use a leica protection filter on my 50 summilux asph, just because the hood sucks and doesnt provide protection at all. on the other lenses like summarits and the 28 elmarit asph the hoods provide plenty of protection

 

otherwise i use a yellow, red and ND filter as well as a stepup ring from 39 to 46

[jaapv]

One thing is that it is a lot less stressful to clean a filter instead of a front element

[smkoush]

I use B+W MRC clear 007 filters on my lenses and I leave the caps at home. As stated above, filters are much easier to clean, easier in the sense of required care while cleaning - a scratch on a filter is less of a problem than a scratch on the front element (not that I clean then often, a bit of dust is not a problem). I also use yellow/red/ND B+W MRC if needed. The only problem I noticed is that on rare occasions I do get very faint flare, but so far this has been so rare that the filters stay on.

[250swb]

I am sure there are counter examples to your sweeping generalizing statement!

 

Where? You get people obsessing over getting the most from their lens, but then won't use a tripod. You get people obsessing over getting the most from their lens, then use HP5 and not Pan F, etc.

 

There are so many other things that get in the way of getting the most from a lens that a filter is pretty well irrelevant in the chain of events. There are however a very few people who seek to employ 'perfect' workflow in the making of an image and where a filter may (or may not) affect the overall quality. But for them there is still the consideration of the post processing if digital, and film processing if analogue. Less than optimal sharpening technique (amongst other things) will degrade the image quality, less than perfect development temperature and time (amongst other things) will degrade image quality.

 

In amongst that lot of variables you may find a filter has an impact on image quality, so good luck spotting it.

 

Steve

[flyalf]

Where? You get people obsessing over getting the most from their lens, but then won't use a tripod. You get people obsessing over getting the most from their lens, then use HP5 and not Pan F, etc.

 

There are so many other things that get in the way of getting the most from a lens that a filter is pretty well irrelevant in the chain of events. There are however a very few people who seek to employ 'perfect' workflow in the making of an image and where a filter may (or may not) affect the overall quality. But for them there is still the consideration of the post processing if digital, and film processing if analogue. Less than optimal sharpening technique (amongst other things) will degrade the image quality, less than perfect development temperature and time (amongst other things) will degrade image quality.

 

In amongst that lot of variables you may find a filter has an impact on image quality, so good luck spotting it.

 

Steve

 

Depends on photo category.

 

Typical examples of negative impcat of filters are night photos, moonscapes, Aurora Borealis and other large contrast scenes, in particular those including light sources in the scene. For these a filter will almost for sure have negative impact such as additional flare, reflections in filter, lower contrast etc. These are clearly visible.

 

For this reason I very seldom use filters of any of my Leica lenses (except pola), only caps and hoods.

 

As with other Internet claims I encourage all to test this them-selfs and decide the importance instead of trusting categorical claims (such as this ).

[doolittle]

Have any of you considered this issue? If any of you have elected to use filters and think you have filters that work well with Leica glass, I would appreciate suggestions.

 

On the M8 I use a B+W UV/IR filter for colour. IR72 on the same camera for infrared. Both work well.

For film use on Leica M system I don't generally use filters. Occasionally will use ND grads on both digital and film (the square Lee ones with the holder).

 

For some of my SLR lenses I do leave a UV filter almost permanently attached, they tend to get more knocks because of their size.

 

Except for the odd time depending on the light source when you get odd reflections, I don't see any image degradation that bothers me. At least on digital can see this and take the shot again if possible. Not so good if you find them on the finished film!

[earleygallery]

Depends on photo category.

 

Typical examples of negative impcat of filters are night photos, moonscapes, Aurora Borealis and other large contrast scenes, in particular those including light sources in the scene. For these a filter will almost for sure have negative impact such as additional flare, reflections in filter, lower contrast etc. These are clearly visible.

 

For this reason I very seldom use filters of any of my Leica lenses (except pola), only caps and hoods.

 

As with other Internet claims I encourage all to test this them-selfs and decide the importance instead of trusting categorical claims (such as this ).

 

I mentioned the issue of reflections in my previous post. One simply avoids using filters where this may be an issue.

 

As for your other claims, perhaps you can post examples? I certainly don't see differences in quality when I use a filter - apart from when it is intentional such as a soft focus filter.

[lct]

I did not use filters on my M cameras before the M8.2 but IR-cut filters are needed with the latter and i'm now getting the same flare and ghost images i used to get with filters on other cameras. Not a big problem to be honest but better remove your filter if you shoot light sources at night especially.

[Stealth3kpl]

I have filters for protection (B+W) but will remove the filter if I think it will affect the image e.g. into the light or sun just out of frame. I once dropped a nikon when getting out of a taxi and it landed square on the filter smashing the glass. The filter rim was bent. On removal, the lens rim was untouched and the front element unmarked. I wouldn't want to tempt fate with my Leica lenses.

Pete

[scjohn]

Thanks all. It seems I was too general in my question but got the answers anyway. I use the lee system for colored filters. i was asking about clear filters for protection and only protection.

 

I am still a bit torn as I use the Leica for night street shooting and the universal response seemed to be that is the time the filter may negatively impact an image.

 

It appears that B+H is the filter of choice here.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Bill W]

I have always used B+W MRC filters for protection and now for my MM I have several for enhancement.

[dirk1]

I stopped using filters due to ghosting which becomes especially visible under conditions of high contrast - like when shooting at night...

See the attached example (screen shot), where I marked the image centre with a green circle. Using a Leica UV-filter, the highlights produce ghosts just opposite the image centre.

I confirmed this with all my current lenses independently; 24/3.8, 35/1.4 FLE, 90/2

However, I think for protection purpose I will fit the filters when shooting in costal and sandy areas with strong wind...

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!