B&W vs Leica UV. filters

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, pedaes said:

Agreed. Interestingly I have a 39mm UVa (not II) box that says 'Made in Germany', so the change may have happened when the upgraded to the 'II' designation (and possibly multi-coating)..

I have several with Made in Germany.

[john1970]

I use B+W filters (MRC clear, polarizers, ND) on all of my camera lenses and have never noticed any issues.  They are high quality construction with brass rings.  I would never buy Leica filters given their prices.  

[Erato]

UVa II is awesome^^b.
I don't have a film haze and light transmittance tester, but some people say that UVa II has better light transmittance than others.
I picked Leica UVa II because it won't block the engraved hallmark.

[Ivar B]

9 hours ago, pedaes said:

Agreed. Interestingly I have a 39mm UVa (not II) box that says 'Made in Germany', so the change may have happened when the upgraded to the 'II' designation (and possibly multi-coating)..

Yes, I believe this is exactly what happened. 

[Ivar B]

9 hours ago, jdlaing said:

I have several with Made in Germany.

Yes, the change took place some years ago so older filters are indeed made in Germany. The new filters and are of higher quality in particular with regard to coating. They are expensive though, and I don`t think they offer more than the MRC Nano coated filters from B + W or the Exus series from Marumi (which may be what the filters are, actually).

Edited September 4, 2020 by Ivar B

[wattsy]

14 hours ago, jaapv said:

The “Leica “ IR filters were not by B+W but by Marumi. It was extensively discussed on this forum in 2007

Yes, there was never any question that the Leica branded UV/IR filters came anywhere other than Japan. Nor do I remember Leica supplying B+W UV/IR filters as a temporary measure. Like many here, I had an M8 from the very first delivery (end of October 2006) and recall the IR sensitivity issue very well. I remember buying my own B+W UV/IR filters independently of Leica (after being 'reassured' on the telephone by the Leica UK "expert" that there was not actually an IR sensitivity problem at all) and then having to wait a few months for the Leica ones to arrive.

Edited September 4, 2020 by wattsy

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An optical designer friend tells me that today you decide the characteristics of the product then look through the glass catalogues for a match. Different glass types can come from different makers depending on what they produce and what you need. Its by no means impossible for a Japanes or Chinese company to be using German produced glass and vice versa. Specification and availability together with ancillary requirements such as coatings are now more important than where glass is actually made.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, wattsy said:

Yes, there was never any question that the Leica branded UV/IR filters came anywhere other than Japan. Nor do I remember Leica supplying B+W UV/IR filters as a temporary measure. Like many here, I had an M8 from the very first delivery (end of October 2006) and recall the IR sensitivity issue very well. I remember buying my own B+W UV/IR filters independently of Leica (after being 'reassured' on the telephone by the Leica UK "expert" that there was not actually an IR sensitivity problem at all) and then having to wait a few months for the Leica ones to arrive.

Quite. At the time I got insider information that B+W,  Leica’s regular supplier, was quite annoyed at Leica’s switch, but they could not deliver the sudden surge in demand as Marumi had snagged the world supply of IR filter glass. Producing a run of optical glass is quite time consuming. 

[lct]

Yet Leica UV/IR filters, at least mine, were made in Germany.

[logan2z]

I know the subject of to-filter-or-not-to-filter has been discussed ad nauseum on photography forums, but I still struggle with the idea of putting a $30 B+W filter(or $120 Leica filter) in front of an expensive Leica lens.  I have B+W filters for my Leica lenses and I've recently started using them, but I'm thinking about taking them off again.  Admittedly, I don't think I can see any difference with or without them, but the idea of the filter rubs me the wrong way.  I use hoods on all of my lenses and I'm pretty careful so have yet to damage one. 

I think I'm going back to 'naked' lenses, presumably as the Leica optical designers intended.

Edited September 5, 2020 by logan2z

[pedaes]

5 hours ago, logan2z said:

but I still struggle with the idea

 ....of damaging the front element  of a $8k lens. I understand what you say, but I can find no credible evidence that image quality is effected through use of a quality filter. Many of the top landscape photographers rely on ND graduated filters stacked with others to get the images they do (Lee Filters etc), and these are nowhere near the quality of B+W/Leica etc.

For me, I am much more comfortable cleaning an on-lens filter 'in the field' (sometimes literally) than I would be cleaning a front element with what I have available and in those conditions.

You literally pays your money and takes your choice with whatever you think best.

This article might help https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

[Matlock]

6 hours ago, logan2z said:

 

I think I'm going back to 'naked' lenses, presumably as the Leica optical designers intended.

Well the first Leica UV filter was introduced in 1931 so I think the Leica optical designers were quite happy for their use. 

[Ivar B]

I believe Peter Karbe mentioned in his speech that all glass elements will affect performance, but the effects of a good filter is unmeasurable. He stressed GOOD filters, though.

I have been very happy with B + W MRC Nano. One thing which was an advantage at least compared to older Leica filters, was that they were much easier to clean. A B + W filter looks new immediately, I believe this may have something to do with the extremely hard surface. 

Some may know that if you have an older Summilux 50 mm with E43 thread (or new lenses with the same design) you need a UV-filter from Leica as the filter is very slim and with a filter from a different brand you can not attach the lens hood. Leica no longer offers this filter so what I did was buy a used one, remove the glass (easy), buy a B + W MRC with much better coating, cut it open (carefully) remove the glass, insert it in the Leica mount, affix the fastening ring, and voila, you have an E43 which works with first class glass. 

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, logan2z said:

I know the subject of to-filter-or-not-to-filter has been discussed ad nauseum on photography forums, but I still struggle with the idea of putting a $30 B+W filter(or $120 Leica filter) in front of an expensive Leica lens.  I have B+W filters for my Leica lenses and I've recently started using them, but I'm thinking about taking them off again.  Admittedly, I don't think I can see any difference with or without them, but the idea of the filter rubs me the wrong way.  I use hoods on all of my lenses and I'm pretty careful so have yet to damage one. 

I think I'm going back to 'naked' lenses, presumably as the Leica optical designers intended.

I bet you never had a problem sticking a 5$ film behind your 5000$ lens... 🙄

[earleygallery]

7 hours ago, logan2z said:

but I still struggle with the idea of putting a $30 B+W filter(or $120 Leica filter) in front of an expensive Leica lens. 

 

What is your thinking behind this? I mean, a Leica lens is made up from many components and optical elements. What if one of those elements only costs $30? Does that make the rest of the lens rubbish?

What about air quality where you take your photos. Lots of pollution in the air (man made or natural) will affect your image quality, but then you can't work in a vacuum (most of the time). Then we can talk about camera shake and how you really should use a very sturdy tripod at all times, if ultimate image quality is your thing.

[lct]

The best filters can cause ghost images in the dark and additional flare when shooting into the light. Good to have one in rainy or sandy environment though

[Rick in CO]

Just a note of caution:  a while ago B+W (originally located in Wiesbaden) had an online warning about counterfeit filters made 'you know where'.

As with SD cards, buy only from a reputable source and avoid online cheapies.

[logan2z]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

I bet you never had a problem sticking a 5$ film behind your 5000$ lens... 🙄

OK, so my mention of the relative cost of these filters somewhat obscured my reason for being hesitant to use them.  And that is that the lenses were designed and tested as an optical system, which didn't take into account any effects that a third-party filter might have.  So, yes, there may be parts used in a lens that cost less than a filter or a roll of film, but they were an integral part of the lens design.  The Leica lens designers couldn't design around deficiencies in the design/manufacture of a third-party filter and, therefore, the filters could have an unknown affect on the optical performance of the lens.  I think it's fairly well-known, for example, that filters can cause flaring and ghosting in certain lighting conditions that wouldn't occur if the lens were used without them.  Yes, 'high quality' filters are multi-coated to reduce/eliminate these effects and are unlikely to degrade image quality, but the fact remains that adding a glass element in front of a lens could have some negative effect.

I am probably being overly pedantic about this.  The reason I grapple with the use of filters is because I welcome the added protection a filter provides.  I certainly don't want to risk damage to an expensive lens.  And yes, there are many other things that can affect image quality, like atmospheric effects, camera shake, etc.  But then it seems one could make the argument that any small improvements that an expensive lens provides would be completely obscured by these effects, so why bother shelling out the $$$ for them? 

I simply want to wring as much performance out of my lenses as is possible given the other effects at play and, at least theoretically, I think that's more likely without a protection filter in front of the lens.  

Perhaps I'm being foolish...

[pgk]

10 minutes ago, logan2z said:

But then it seems one could make the argument that any small improvements that an expensive lens provides would be completely obscured by these effects, so why bother shelling out the $$$ for them?

You can make the argument but that's all you are doing. In reality a good filter has an indiscernible effect on the image produced by the lens. If its indiscernible .....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pedaes]

9 minutes ago, logan2z said:

as much performance out of my lenses as is possible

Why don't you set your camera up on a tripod, set lens to f5.6 and take two exposures - one with a filter attached, one without. Then look at result x300 magnification and see if you can spot difference. If you have facility, also print section equivalent to A1 size print and again see if you can spot difference. You will then know.