Leica R 19mm f/2.8 V.2 Built in filters. Does ND x1 setting = no filter present? Or is it an actually ND?

[Bigbuddha319]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey everyone, I just purchased the Leica R 19mm f/2.8 V.2 and I'm super impressed by it! I just had a quick question regarding the built in filters.

Is it 3 color filters (KB 12, Or, and YG) and the ND x1 setting means there is no filter present?

Or is it actually 4 filters and ND x1 is an actual ND filter? Since there isn't a "No Filter" option, does this mean the lens isn't actually an f/2.8 since there is always a filter? Or is it an f/2.8 even with ND x1?

In which case, the permanent presence of ND seems like kind of a handicap in certain situations where you might want the most light available to the lens.

Thanks!

[jip]

It will always be a F2.8 lens regardless of filter used, of course light transmission will be less with some filters.

 

ND x1 on the R 19 means a clear glass filter.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wildlightphoto]

 

Hey everyone, I just purchased the Leica R 19mm f/2.8 V.2 and I'm super impressed by it! I just had a quick question regarding the built in filters.

Is it 3 color filters (KB 12, Or, and YG) and the ND x1 setting means there is no filter present?

Or is it actually 4 filters and ND x1 is an actual ND filter? Since there isn't a "No Filter" option, does this mean the lens isn't actually an f/2.8 since there is always a filter? Or is it an f/2.8 even with ND x1?

In which case, the permanent presence of ND seems like kind of a handicap in certain situations where you might want the most light available to the lens.

Thanks!

 

 

 

ND x1 means the exposure factor is 1.0, i.e., it has no effect on the exposure.  Pretty much like a clear sheet of glass.

[adan]

The point being that the 19 v.2 is designed with a flat piece of glass (the filter) as part of the optical formula. Since even "optically flat" glass can bend or shift light rays that hit it at an angle.

 

http://slideplayer.com/slide/4531026/15/images/71/Example+32-8:+Refraction+through+flat+glass..jpg

 

So for best performance, there always has to be a filter in place inside that lens, clear (ND x1) or colored. It is right there in the optical engineering drawing:

 

http://www.sigmacumlaude.com/19%20V2%20layout.jpg

 

The same is true, for example, in the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 lens - there is a front clear filter "built into" the optics for protection, and an internal filter slot that also always has a filter installed (clear or colored). To make the design work right.

 

http://global.canon/ja/c-museum/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ef270-lens-construction.gif

Edited September 20, 2017 by adan

[masjah]

Exactly as with the 280/4 Apo R.

 

Related to this, if possible I avoid putting a protective filter in the lens hood of my 28/2.8 PC Super Angulon. (I have two copies of the lens hood, one with and one without a filter). Even though the filter is oversize, because of the shifting, for the same reason there are very oblique rays involved, and the lateral displacement, even with parallel sided glass, is I believe significant.

 

So, as adan implies, if the lens formula demands an internal filter, don't omit it.

Edited September 20, 2017 by masjah

[jankap]

Multiple flat filters lead to reflections, a sensor worsens the problem still.

Is the mentioned Canon lens designed for film or for sensors? 

Two fixed(?) built-in filters are a problem.

 

I have a APO-Telyt 280/2,8 since a few months, it was delivered with a front filter and a slot filter.

I hope, the front filter is meant for protection only, because the results are much better without it.

With light sources in the picture the effect is obvious, but - of course - it is always present. 

Jan

 

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!

Museum Boymans-van Beuningen in Rotterdam

In this case mirrors, no filters.

Edited September 21, 2017 by jankap

[Steve McGarrett]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course the front 112mm filter is for protection only, otherwise you couldn't unscrew it...

 

But in the Elmarit 19 v2 (same in the Super-Elmar 15, for example), filters are in a turret, so there is no such thing as "two fixed built-in filters": only one filter at a time is in the path of light rays... and like the others have said, it's part of the optical design of the lens.

[jankap]

The Elmarit 19mm v2 has built-in filters. I suppose, that the filters cannot be changed without opening the lens.

But what size does these filters have?

The offered set is for film. What filters could one imagine instead? Dark ND-filter, IR-pass filter, ...

Jan

Edited February 16, 2018 by jankap

[adan]

At one point - for a price - one could have Leitz/Leica install substitute built-in filters for "stock" filters in the the 19/16/15 lenses that used them. That time may be past since the R-system has been defunct for a decade, but you never know.

 

Those filters do not have "a size" in traditional terms - they are about 5-8mm in diameter and installed collectively in a rotating metal disk inside the lens, for selection. They are calculated into the optical formula, so replacement filters would have to match for glass thickness and index of refraction, as well as providing whatever effect is desired, so you could not just hack a circle out of some other IR or ND filter and glue that in place.

[jankap]

Adan, thanks.

I am "thinking the unthinkable" on a very small scale. Not yet close to using Holga cameras.

 

There is an Elmarit offered "for parts". Shaved to be usable on Canikon.

On the other hand Leica equipment is very good seen from the technical side.

The built-in filters would be not very usable, as I cancelled the use of film (for me).

So what could I do with this lens?

 

The dimensions of these very small filters could be solved eventually.

Your mentioning of the refractive coefficient is a point. But on a 280er it is allowed to use fancy filters.

Ok, series 5.5 stays a problem. But the optic properties do not seem to be very critical.

Jan

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

I doubt two builtin filters are much of a problem, since many top performing lenses have those.

 

Obviously they have to be multicoated, or else the argument would be correct.