pgk Posted December 28, 2012 Share #21 Posted December 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) After I've been shooting underwater I often shoot some above water shots using the underwater camera housing with a flat port. This effectively means that I am shooting through a very thick (~5mm+) glass filter. Despite this the results are usually very good indeed. But I do this with 'longer' focal lengths (~100mm). Shooting through thick glass with wider focal lengths quickly results in progressively softer corners (easy enough to try, just put your lens against a window and shoot). So I would say that there is some image degradation caused by the use of planar glass in front of a lens and it is more noticeable as focal length decreases. That said, for me, the difference in using a thin, optical glass filter close to the lens and not using one is miniscule and I can say that I have only very, very rarely noticed some degradation in the very corners of an image which just might be due to the use of a filter, and I am happy to trade this possibility with the protection offered by a filter. So for 'absolute image quality' then a filter is probably best removed ..... Ghosting is another issue, but again I've not been unduly affected by ghosting (except on UVIR filters on the M8), and this is probably an issue which affects some photographers more than others and depends on how they shoot and their subject matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 28, 2012 Posted December 28, 2012 Hi pgk, Take a look here Filters - yes or no if yes then what?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
maurometallo Posted December 30, 2012 Share #22 Posted December 30, 2012 I shoot film and I have always had a Leica UV filter on my lens, just to protect the front element: I have never noticed any image degradation and gained greater peace of mind... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted December 30, 2012 Share #23 Posted December 30, 2012 I shoot film and I have always had a Leica UV filter on my lens, just to protect the front element: I have never noticed any image degradation and gained greater peace of mind... Hmmm, so how do you know if there is any degradation if you never shoot without filter to compare ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted December 31, 2012 Share #24 Posted December 31, 2012 +1 for filter prophylaxis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted January 1, 2013 Share #25 Posted January 1, 2013 I have about 10 M lenses, mostly Leica, and use the hoods for protection. I have never used a filter for that and haven't suffered any damage so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 1, 2013 Share #26 Posted January 1, 2013 I have never used a filter for that and haven't suffered any damage so far. Well, you are fortunate (or more careful than I am;)) because I have, and the shattered filter undoubtedly saved the front element and I'm certain resulted in a less expensive repair (focus stiff after the drop). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted January 1, 2013 Share #27 Posted January 1, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Same here, over the years I had two incidents with shattered UV-filters. I´am pretty sure - without these filters - I would certainly have had lensdamages much more expensive, than filters. Started with LEITZ/ LEICA UV-Filters, after my very good experience with B&W IR-cut-filters these days it´s the B&W MRC type ... Best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted January 1, 2013 Share #28 Posted January 1, 2013 Multi-coating on filters makes a big difference. I set up a "garbage" shot to test filter reflections. As noted filter reflections occur across the image center. First is my 1969 Summicron 50 with a 1969 Leitz UVa filter: 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! Next a 2012 Summicron 50 with a B&W ProF UVa: Then the same lens with a B&W ProF MRC (multi-coated): And finally the 2012 Summicron bare: (I don't have a current Leica filter - but I imagine they are now multi-coated as well.) I've bought many used lenses, and the ones that have had filters installed tend to have fewer lens surface problems, so filters do offer protection. Now I use multi-coated on all my "good" lenses. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Next a 2012 Summicron 50 with a B&W ProF UVa: Then the same lens with a B&W ProF MRC (multi-coated): And finally the 2012 Summicron bare: (I don't have a current Leica filter - but I imagine they are now multi-coated as well.) I've bought many used lenses, and the ones that have had filters installed tend to have fewer lens surface problems, so filters do offer protection. Now I use multi-coated on all my "good" lenses. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/194780-filters-yes-or-no-if-yes-then-what/?do=findComment&comment=2202961'>More sharing options...
jankap Posted January 1, 2013 Share #29 Posted January 1, 2013 Does it make sense to use a pola-filter for a 2.0 or an 1.4 lens? Instead of an UV-filter? An UV-filter isn't very useful, namely. With a pola-filter one looses an f-stop during the normal use. But one can take it off, if one needs the extra light. Jan PS My only problem are the fingerprints on the front lens (sometimes). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted January 1, 2013 Share #30 Posted January 1, 2013 A UV filter is really only for protection - which it does well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted January 1, 2013 Share #31 Posted January 1, 2013 I look at this this way... UV/sky 1A filters are cheap insurance against damaging the irreplaceable front element of any lens. Filters come off quickly enough if you're shooting something where it would induce problems, but if you need it to protect that front element from a traumatic event, you probably don't have time to put one on. I agree with the posts that talk about all of the variables that go into making a final print... they're legion, and in the real world, image degradation by a lens filter is probably the least of your issues. There's no reason in the world to use an uncoated or single coated filter though. They're cheap enough that you should keep up with MC technology to make the best of it. I had an Oly 35-100 f/2 zoom AND an E3 body fall to a concrete floor from about 6' up. The camera/lens combo landed on the filter. The lens mount stayed on the camera as it was pulled from the lens, but the elements weren't damaged. The damage was repaired and the lens re-collimated and it's still the finest lens I have ever owned for portraiture. Had the filter not been installed, it would have been the end of a $2400 lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted January 1, 2013 Share #32 Posted January 1, 2013 I avoid filters when possible, only UV/IR on the M8 With a shiny digital sensor there is a big risk of light reflecting off the surface back into the lens and back into the image. Saw this with the Nikon D1 as it came out... I always use a lens hood for lens and flare protection. Smashed a couple over the years. I have never smashed/dropped a lens or camera... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 1, 2013 Share #33 Posted January 1, 2013 In 40 years of photography I have never used filters as protection and have never (touch wood) had any lens front element damage ... the occasional pawprint that easily cleaned off. Just treat your gear carefully in consideration of the precision optical equipment it is.... I have inadvertently stripped off the front coating of an auto focus nikon once .... but it had a full glass of champagne tipped into it that glued up all the moving parts and I used some toxic industrial solvent in desperation... I suppose if you are a pro festooned with cameras and hanging off the back of a moped trying to get a snap of Britneys knickers it might make sense..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted January 2, 2013 Share #34 Posted January 2, 2013 Does it make sense to use a pola-filter for a 2.0 or an 1.4 lens? Instead of an UV-filter? Sorry, wrong question for this forum. I have a live view camera, not a rangefinder. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 3, 2013 Share #35 Posted January 3, 2013 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 Similar thing happened to me twice, two different lenses. Bought new filters. As far as image degradation goes, I bought a new lens that came with a filter and compared it with the old one. The old one was better by a little. Then I removed the filter and the new lens won out. I have done the experiment before with a yellow filter and monochrome film. For sure you can see the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted January 4, 2013 Share #36 Posted January 4, 2013 I have about 10 M lenses, mostly Leica, and use the hoods for protection. I have never used a filter for that and haven't suffered any damage so far. Same here. The "never used a filter for protection" and the "no damage so far" parts, that is. I also prefer using a lens hood for both front element protection, contrast enhancement and the other benefits a lens hood provides. I'm working on the "10 M lenses" part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
valerio Posted February 5, 2013 Share #37 Posted February 5, 2013 I've been using filters, both for protection and contrast, for almost 20 years and I've never noticed any sign of image quality degradation. I just make sure that I buy good quality filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted February 5, 2013 Share #38 Posted February 5, 2013 Here is a very good reason not to use filters on digital cameras unless absolutely needed like UV/IR on M8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest borge Posted February 5, 2013 Share #39 Posted February 5, 2013 Having a B+W MRC filter with an F-Pro mount on my Summilux 1.4/50 ASPH when it hit the tarmac - face first - saved my lens from a whole lot of shock damage. The B+W filters with F-Pro mounts use a brass ring. Brass is a lot softer than aluminium (the lens material) so it dampens the impact a lot. It also protected the front element. The lens still had to be sent to Leica for repairs but I am 100% sure that the damage would have been a lot worse without a filter on the lens, and that the repair costs would have been a lot higher. The filter ring basically absorbed most of the shock damage when it hit the tarmac. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les_Sismore Posted February 5, 2013 Share #40 Posted February 5, 2013 Filters are very useful for colour temperature correction. A UV filter cuts ultraviolet and is effective in many instances when the colour temperature is a bit above 5500k, but when the colour temperature is 8000k or more (as it can in bright sunlight from sea level to high altitude), a KR1.5, KR3, 81B or similar will cut excessive blue, darken shadows, etc. A colour temperature chart can be used to suggest which filter will be appropriate in most situations, but if you want to be precise, an accurate colour temperature meter and filters for which the spectral characteristics are known (e.g. decamired value, k-factor, etc.) are essential. Brands? For screw-in, there are many - multicoated B&W, Leica, Schneider, Hoya, Tiffin, etc. For gels and resin, Lee and Singh-Ray are very popular. As in all things, you get what you pay for - only the very best filters should be used with those superb Leica lenses. Hope this helps! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.