bideford Posted November 8, 2013 Share #1 Posted November 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) After only 4 weeks (delayed by a week as I was on holiday) I am now in possession of a new M as a replacement upgrade for my lcd coffee stained M8.2. Despite the naysayers I am actually pleasantly impressed - but more of that later. Quick question - do I offload all my UV/IR filters and replace with UV filters (I use them mainly as lens protection) or can I simply keep them and use on the new M. I seem to recall somewhere that they can create problems with wide angles (Skopar 21mm f/4 being my widest) - if so at what focal length does it become an issue? James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Hi bideford, Take a look here UV/IR Filters. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jip Posted November 8, 2013 Share #2 Posted November 8, 2013 I've used them on the M9, no problems... my widest where I used them on though was the 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH. I have not tried it on the M yet I usually only use filters if they have effect on the pictures... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted November 8, 2013 Share #3 Posted November 8, 2013 ...do I offload all my UV/IR filters and replace with UV filters (I use them mainly as lens protection) or can I simply keep them and use on the new M. I seem to recall somewhere that they can create problems with wide angles (Skopar 21mm f/4 being my widest) - if so at what focal length does it become an issue? It's easy to see if you'll have problems with any filter/lens combination on the M240 if you turn on live view -- you don't even have to take a picture. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 8, 2013 Share #4 Posted November 8, 2013 Kept my UV/IR filters as i still use my M8.2. No problem at all down to 21mm with the M240 and Leica lenses. The CV 21/4 is very good on the M8.2 but difficult on the M240 w or w/o UV/IR filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 9, 2013 Share #5 Posted November 9, 2013 You may even need them in high-IR situations. Though well-filtered for IR the M is still slightly sensitive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted November 9, 2013 Share #6 Posted November 9, 2013 You may even need them in high-IR situations. Though well-filtered for IR the M is still slightly sensitive. Good to know all the money I spent on IR filters for my M8 won't go to waste. What other company but Leica would take such pains to assure backward compatibility to the nth degree like that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveBK Posted November 9, 2013 Share #7 Posted November 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't think it makes a huge difference either way.. But I will differ by saying I found more reflections, especially in night/low light using UV/IR filters. For this reason I switched to regular UV filters once I moved M8->M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 9, 2013 Share #8 Posted November 9, 2013 Better removing any filter by night otherwise you'll get ghost images with UV/IR as well as UV filters. More or less so with the formers i don't know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 9, 2013 Share #9 Posted November 9, 2013 UV/IR filters give more reflections. They cannot be multicoated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns_ng Posted November 9, 2013 Share #10 Posted November 9, 2013 Since I am still using my M8, I tend to leave the UV/IR filters on the lenses when I switched to my M240. I have not seen any difference. I did a test shooting a small piece of black microfiber cloth under strong sunlight without the UV/IR filter. I could see a small amount of magenta @100%. With the UV/IR filter, the magenta cast was eliminated. N S Ng Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted November 9, 2013 Share #11 Posted November 9, 2013 I tend to not care if there is one on, my boyfriend (Lorenzvs on the forum) still has a M8 if I use his 28 Elmarit-M ASPH. sometimes I just leave it on, I don't care about it and I've never noticed a negative impact... Neither on M9 or now the M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted November 10, 2013 Share #12 Posted November 10, 2013 I just leave them on as I transfer lenses from M8 to M9. Filters cause loss of definition. If you take them off, do not replace or save them for bad situations like snow/rain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 10, 2013 Share #13 Posted November 10, 2013 ...Filters cause loss of definition... In no way i can see as far as UV/IR filters are concerned on M8.2 as well as M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted November 11, 2013 Share #14 Posted November 11, 2013 UV/IR filters give more reflections. They cannot be multicoated. Actually they are multi-coated - just the wrong sort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 11, 2013 Share #15 Posted November 11, 2013 Yes and no The filtereffect is attained by layers of coating, but as you say, that is not anti-reflective coating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougg Posted November 12, 2013 Share #16 Posted November 12, 2013 I just leave them on as I transfer lenses from M8 to M9. ... Yes, I do the same as I still like to use the M8. And I'd like to eliminate that last vestige of IR in the M, as I did with the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted November 16, 2013 Share #17 Posted November 16, 2013 When I compared them to the B+W and Leica UV/IRs the Heliopans had noticeably less surface reflections so those are the ones I have. Some say the IR cutting effect is slightly different but I never noticed it to be a problem, and any tiny slight color cast is much easier to deal with in post than veiling glare or ghost reflections. The Heliopan coatings are also more scratch resistent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 16, 2013 Share #18 Posted November 16, 2013 Yes, I do the same as I still like to use the M8. And I'd like to eliminate that last vestige of IR in the M, as I did with the M9. I my experience it is more than a vestige.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted November 17, 2013 Share #19 Posted November 17, 2013 After only 4 weeks (delayed by a week as I was on holiday) I am now in possession of a new M as a replacement upgrade for my lcd coffee stained M8.2. Despite the naysayers I am actually pleasantly impressed - but more of that later. Quick question - do I offload all my UV/IR filters and replace with UV filters (I use them mainly as lens protection) or can I simply keep them and use on the new M. I seem to recall somewhere that they can create problems with wide angles (Skopar 21mm f/4 being my widest) - if so at what focal length does it become an issue? James No problems with wide angles using the ir filters I alway keep them on the 21 ( not more than normal I mean ) see: Ballonvaart en landing in Moerenburg: "Trying to catch a Virgin." - pauljoostenfotograaf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted November 18, 2013 Share #20 Posted November 18, 2013 I use my old M8 days e67 uv/ir on the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 but with it's mirrored pink glass removed, then a Lee step-up ring for attaching Lee RF75 grad filter set. Works okie & can fit the polariser on top of that. The e67 uv/ir was an expensive filter in it's heyday but I didn't really want to be messing about with colour too much. Glad I found a use for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.