profus Posted April 20, 2016 Share #1 Posted April 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Those of you who bought 24-90 - do you use any filter on it? Normally I do not like to put anything on my lens, but it's probably a good idea to do it anyway on more expensive lenses to protect front element in every day use... Than again - this Leica UVa Filter costs 280€?! Is it really that good? As UV filter it is not doing really much, but I assume it is of top quality not affecting lens' basis optic characteristics... Any thoughts, tnx? BR / Alex Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Hi profus, Take a look here E-82 UVa II Filter on Vario-Elmarit 24-90 ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter Walker Posted April 20, 2016 Share #2 Posted April 20, 2016 Age old debate: to protect or not. I protect. A B&W UV filter is cheaper to replace than the front element of the lens. Is there a quality loss? Marginal and probably invisible, especially if you use the lens hood. Regards Peter 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted April 20, 2016 Share #3 Posted April 20, 2016 Age old debate: to protect or not. I protect. A B&W UV filter is cheaper to replace than the front element of the lens. Is there a quality loss? Marginal and probably invisible, especially if you use the lens hood. Regards Peter +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
profus Posted April 20, 2016 Author Share #4 Posted April 20, 2016 Age old debate: to protect or not. I protect. A B&W UV filter is cheaper to replace than the front element of the lens. Is there a quality loss? Marginal and probably invisible, especially if you use the lens hood. Regards Peter Yep, I am aware this is an old debate... I was more wondering about - in my opinion! - extremely high price for this Leica UV filter...are you saying there's a cheaper alternative ( B&W one)? Thank you again! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Walker Posted April 20, 2016 Share #5 Posted April 20, 2016 Yep, I am aware this is an old debate... I was more wondering about - in my opinion! - extremely high price for this Leica UV filter...are you saying there's a cheaper alternative ( B&W one)? Thank you again! At B&H you can get a Bower 82mm UV filter for $6.50 USD. Then they range all the way up to one from Tokina that's "hydrophilic" for $420 USD. The B+W is just above the middle of the range. Hoya are good quality at a reasonable price. ($150). Regards Peter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted April 20, 2016 Share #6 Posted April 20, 2016 Leica UV filter 82mm. Why pay so much for Leica lens and slap on a cheap UV? All your images pass through it. It is as good as running 4 Kumho tyres on a Mercedes Benz SL. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted April 20, 2016 Share #7 Posted April 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't use a filter. I find the lens hood more than adequate for protecting the front element while carrying around. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted April 20, 2016 Share #8 Posted April 20, 2016 I don't use a filter. I find the lens hood more than adequate for protecting the front element while carrying around. Same here. I have only one 82mm filter ... a Rodenstock circular polarizer. I've used it twice now. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivar B Posted April 23, 2016 Share #9 Posted April 23, 2016 Age old debate: to protect or not. I protect. A B&W UV filter is cheaper to replace than the front element of the lens. Is there a quality loss? Marginal and probably invisible, especially if you use the lens hood. Regards Peter If we speak of quality loss, this would rather be for the Leica filter and not the B + W. B + W have better coating and are easier to clean. I am not sure who makes the Leica filters for Leica. The UV/IR filters were Japanese. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 23, 2016 Share #10 Posted April 23, 2016 No lens hood No UV or other filter Despite extensive use over 4.5 months there isn't even any dust on the front element ....... no idea what it is coated with but it works wonders...... No ..... I'm not stupid...... I'm just a bit more careful ..... which to be honest you should be with a combo costing GBP 9k ..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 23, 2016 Share #11 Posted April 23, 2016 Leica UV filter 82mm. Why pay so much for Leica lens and slap on a cheap UV? All your images pass through it. It is as good as running 4 Kumho tyres on a Mercedes Benz SL. Not quite. Leica does not make the filter themselves, they buy the filter glass, normally from Schott (AKA B&W). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted April 24, 2016 Share #12 Posted April 24, 2016 Not quite. Leica does not make the filter themselves, they buy the filter glass, normally from Schott (AKA B&W). The source can be the same, the quality control and specification differ! Tell me the source of glass Leica useses is more exotic comparing to Nikon & Canon? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G. van Asch Posted April 24, 2016 Share #13 Posted April 24, 2016 Anyway I use the Leica UV and 82mm polarizing filters on the 24-90 lens. Expensive but it works perfect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ay11 Posted June 2, 2018 Share #14 Posted June 2, 2018 I always use a B+W or Heliopan UV filter in front of my 24-90. Particularly when shooting in seaside conditions where salt water spray could land on the front element. Sea water (spray) can be"sticky" and can even become gritty when dry. No sense putting micro scratches on the front from dried salt. I have never noticed a decline in IQ when using a decent filter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted June 2, 2018 Share #15 Posted June 2, 2018 It says on the box that the Leica 82mm UVa II is made in Japan. It's a question of ultimate performance which can to some degree be expressed as total light transmission. I can't remember the exact figures of an independent lab test that was published but many UVa filters transmit ~98% Good ones get up to 99.5%. The Leica UVa II transmits 99.9% in the visible spectrum. Basically there is no flare. I count this as a small but significant plus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted June 2, 2018 Share #16 Posted June 2, 2018 Lensrentals published the 99.9% light transmission number. They also showed a $70 filter at 99.8% and a $20 filter at 99.5% so it’s not a big difference between the good filters despite big price differences. They did another test for distortion but didn’t have a big enough Leica filter to include in that test. Lensrentals has done a lot of filter articles. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/ 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 2, 2018 Share #17 Posted June 2, 2018 Tell me the source of glass Leica useses is more exotic comparing to Nikon & Canon? Karbe gives a good example with the glass used in the 50 Summilux ASPH... https://www.shutterbug.com/content/leica-lens-saga-interview-peter-karbe-page-2 An excerpt.... “For example, the glass I chose for lens element 3 is of crucial importance in minimizing the secondary color aberration. This glass, formerly made at the Leitz glass laboratory, was for a long time offered by another supplier who had taken over its production. But they had stopped making it, so I had to “encourage” another German glassmaker to literally reinvent this glass type. Today this glass is extremely expensive. Indeed, the material for this lens element alone costs as much as the glass used in all the other lens elements of the Summilux 50mm f/1.4 ASPH! In short, optical design software, as useful as it can be, will not help in choosing the appropriate glass types, especially those used to minimize secondary chromatic aberration.” Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted June 2, 2018 Share #18 Posted June 2, 2018 I have always used B+W Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roofus Posted June 3, 2018 Share #19 Posted June 3, 2018 Leica UV filter 82mm. Why pay so much for Leica lens and slap on a cheap UV? All your images pass through it. It is as good as running 4 Kumho tyres on a Mercedes Benz SL. I agree! A top-quality lens requires a top-quality filter! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Per P. Posted June 4, 2018 Share #20 Posted June 4, 2018 Generally I haven't used filters for my M-lenses. But already from the beginning I was considering one for the 24-90 since it is so expensive. In the end I decided to use a B+W protective, not because of the price but in order to put the lens shade away. I am also experimenting with a filter on the 75mm SL to put away the shade and thus reduce the size. For my photos the potential quality loss is not important but more in my mind. I see it as a minor compromise and a choice between optimal quality and handling. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.