50 Cron with multiple filter test

[bwibowo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I made small note for M8 with 50 cron attached with 2 filters (UV/iR and CPL)

Budi Wibowo Photography | Leica M8 Summicron 50 with multiple filters

comment or suggestion highly appreciated

 

regards

[250swb]

I think in this case it is a situation where a UV and/or CPL makes the image worse.

 

As soon as you put a UV filter on the depth in the photograph is destroyed, the middle distance becomes an undifferentiated blob with no significant change in colour or tone to suggest objects further away. Sometimes photographic technique is wrong to correct nature and what the eye can see.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

I don't think you are right, Steve. Since the early Sixties UV transmission of Leica lenses is less than 10%. Other brands too. A UV filter does not make any difference, unless you are in extremely high UV conditions, like high up in the mountains.

I know because I dabbled in UV photography a few years ago and the only lens that would work was my Summarit 1.5/50.

 

The OP refers to the M8 and an IR cut filter, however.

Stacking is indeed essential. A polfilter ( not necessarily a circular one, a linear one is sufficient on a mirrorless camera) will cut out about 50% of the visible light, but not of the IR light. That means that if one does not stack with an IR filter the IR contamination will double.

I would advise the OP to put the IR filter on first and the POL on top. That avoids quite a bit of filter-screwing.

IR-effective polfilters do exist but are intended for astrophotography and quite expensive.

 

The test by the OP gives a small indication, but unfortunately the low image quality and misexposures/exposure variations make the comparison quite difficult if not impossible.

[250swb]

I'm just going by the images used as an example. Whether you stack them in a certain order or just use one I'm not convinced any solution makes things 'better' than the photo without. Of course a different type of image may reveal a 'better' reason to use a CPL.

 

Steve

[bwibowo]

I'm just going by the images used as an example. Whether you stack them in a certain order or just use one I'm not convinced any solution makes things 'better' than the photo without. Of course a different type of image may reveal a 'better' reason to use a CPL.

 

Steve

 

next time i will try to shoot sky and compare the result

[bwibowo]

I don't think you are right, Steve. Since the early Sixties UV transmission of Leica lenses is less than 10%. Other brands too. A UV filter does not make any difference, unless you are in extremely high UV conditions, like high up in the mountains.

I know because I dabbled in UV photography a few years ago and the only lens that would work was my Summarit 1.5/50.

 

The OP refers to the M8 and an IR cut filter, however.

Stacking is indeed essential. A polfilter ( not necessarily a circular one, a linear one is sufficient on a mirrorless camera) will cut out about 50% of the visible light, but not of the IR light. That means that if one does not stack with an IR filter the IR contamination will double.

I would advise the OP to put the IR filter on first and the POL on top. That avoids quite a bit of filter-screwing.

IR-effective polfilters do exist but are intended for astrophotography and quite expensive.

 

The test by the OP gives a small indication, but unfortunately the low image quality and misexposures/exposure variations make the comparison quite difficult if not impossible.

 

how's the correct order lens-->uv/ir---cpl or lens-->cpl--> uv/ir filter