uv filter for protection

[Denebola]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looks like that the Hoya HD nano Mk II  UV  is aimed as a strong protection filter (over than UV), at least, as per their bombastic description. 

https://hoyafilter.com/product/hd_nano_mk_ii_uv/

Den

Edited September 9, 2023 by Denebola

[mholeica]

I got the Leica UV filter for my Q3, usually don’t use one when I was using an ILC but with fixed lens I wanted to protect it and felt compelled to put Leica glass on top of Leica glass, don’t know much about UV filters though was just worried to not affect the quality of the lens.

[Delboy72]

Worth a read

https://petapixel.com/2020/06/04/why-uv-filters-are-basically-useless-on-modern-cameras/

https://petapixel.com/2020/05/13/manufacturers-confirm-uv-filters-are-not-designed-to-protect-your-lenses/

[Denebola]

The second article has been written in 2020, new Hoya filters started in 2021, so maybe they changed their mind and added more physical protection for the new filter series, still as they say on their site, of course.

Personally I always use a hood (both for flares as well as for physical protection), and good protection filter too, this last mainly for defense against water/salt/sand/…

Den

[mholeica]

1 hour ago, Delboy72 said:

 

Worth a read

https://petapixel.com/2020/06/04/why-uv-filters-are-basically-useless-on-modern-cameras/

https://petapixel.com/2020/05/13/manufacturers-confirm-uv-filters-are-not-designed-to-protect-your-lenses/

No impact protection for sure, if you drop it on a rock I’m pretty sure both UV filter and lens will crack. Protection for things like surfaces scratches, much better to need to replace a UV filter than to have a permanent scratch on your lens. Can you see hairline scratches in the photo if you have one on the lens though?

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, mholeica said:

Can you see hairline scratches in the photo if you have one on the lens though?

No. Worse scratches maybe a slight loss of contrast or flare

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2022/11/how-front-element-scratches-affect-your-images/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters/

[bobtodrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, mholeica said:

No impact protection for sure, if you drop it on a rock I’m pretty sure both UV filter and lens will crack. Protection for things like surfaces scratches, much better to need to replace a UV filter than to have a permanent scratch on your lens. Can you see hairline scratches in the photo if you have one on the lens though?

Not so sure.

I once dropped an M Asph Summicron on a concrete sidewalk.

The brass ring of the B&W filter was dented (needed a filter wrench to remove it) and the filter glass was shattered…the lens itself was fine.

Maybe the lense wouldn’t have been damaged without a filter…but ever since then I use good brass ring filters.  Brass is meant to deform and absorb impacts.

Edited September 10, 2023 by bobtodrick

[hdmesa]

5 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

Not so sure.

I once dropped an M Asph Summicron on a concrete sidewalk.

The brass ring of the B&W filter was dented (needed a filter wrench to remove it) and the filter glass was shattered…the lens itself was fine.

Maybe the lense wouldn’t have been damaged without a filter…but ever since then I use good brass ring filters.  Brass is meant to deform and absorb impacts.

Same story for me involving:

• A large cat with an obsession over a particular leather camera strap
• A Minolta X700 film camera
• And an irreplaceable (to me due to like-new condition) Minolta 58 f/1.2 lens with a B+W filter and B+W lens hood

Long story short, the camera, filter, and hood were a total loss, but the lens was undamaged and still functions and looks like new.

Immediately ordered a replacement filter and hood and tossed the dented and scratched ones in the trash.

[jaapv]

And the cat? 

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

And the cat? 

The camera was the literal comic-piano for the cat  - on life less, another eight to go  

 

[MikeD70]

On 11/5/2017 at 3:30 PM, jaapv said:

I would strongly recommend the B&W 007 Nano. Not only is it thinner than a regular UV filter, thus fewer aberrations, it is also tougher and the Nano-coating helps to keep it clean.

You will be hard-pushed to see any detrimental effect.

Ditto!  I have been using these B&W filters on all three of my Q's, can't find any ill effects in the images.  Great insurance.  Easy to clean.

[MikeD70]

On 9/9/2023 at 1:18 PM, Delboy72 said:

 

Worth a read

https://petapixel.com/2020/06/04/why-uv-filters-are-basically-useless-on-modern-cameras/

https://petapixel.com/2020/05/13/manufacturers-confirm-uv-filters-are-not-designed-to-protect-your-lenses/

In defense of the filters, while not meant to be shatter proof, they do offer a line of protection that a hood alone can't.  If you've ever gotten ash on a lens, it is crazy hard to remove.  You can always trash the filter, but not the lens.  I've had that happen twice and replaced the filter both times.

[Ko.Fe.]

On 9/9/2023 at 1:18 PM, Delboy72 said:

 

Worth a read

https://petapixel.com/2020/06/04/why-uv-filters-are-basically-useless-on-modern-cameras/

https://petapixel.com/2020/05/13/manufacturers-confirm-uv-filters-are-not-designed-to-protect-your-lenses/

 

PP is hit and miss source. It is known for years  what UV filters are useless on digital cameras and only degrade image quality.

But claiming what any lens filter is not protecting the lens is so PePi.

While every one else knows it is filter not the  lens which gets all of the scratches, fingers, dust, splashes and impacts (if no hood).  

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

And the cat? 

Cat seemed unscathed. I came into the room after the crash of the camera to the floor off a counter-height dining table to find the cat looking at me as if to say, "Oops."

[Daniel C.1975]

I also use the B&W 007 nano.  And I can't see any  negative effect. I have not used protection filters for many, many years (on L-lenses, M-Lenses, SL-Lenses, you name it), only functional filters. Still I never had a scratch or other impact related problems with my lenses

So, I am not convinced that it is really necessary.  

However, on the Q-line with its fixed lens it just gives me some peace of mind and if I see a smear, I just breathe on it and use my t-shirt. I would never do so directly on the front glass. 

 

Therefore, I am guilty in being a bit more careful than maybe necessary  

[reynoldsyoung]

On 11/5/2017 at 3:30 PM, jaapv said:

I would strongly recommend the B&W 007 Nano. Not only is it thinner than a regular UV filter, thus fewer aberrations, it is also tougher and the Nano-coating helps to keep it clean.

You will be hard-pushed to see any detrimental effect.

Perfect solution!  Couldn’t agree more. 

[Woodstock]

Living in Cornwall, and being fond of coastal photography with its attendant sand and salt, I am convinced of the potential benefits of a protective filter, preferably clear but at a pinch, and entirely accepting there is no relevant wavelength effect of significance, UV. The B&W nano seems to be the one of choice, but I am somewhat concerned that the depth of the front rim, compared for example with the Leica UV filter, is quite short. Given that my intention would be to leave the clear filter in place at all times, but to use my Kase 72mm magnetic system with a step up ring when needing CPL or NDs, I wonder if the increased depth of the Leica filter front rim might be of mechanical benefit.

Does anyone have any experience of use the Kase or similar systems with the B&W?

 Grateful for any thoughts.

 

[Anbaric]

30 minutes ago, Woodstock said:

Living in Cornwall, and being fond of coastal photography with its attendant sand and salt, I am convinced of the potential benefits of a protective filter, preferably clear but at a pinch, and entirely accepting there is no relevant wavelength effect of significance, UV. The B&W nano seems to be the one of choice, but I am somewhat concerned that the depth of the front rim, compared for example with the Leica UV filter, is quite short. Given that my intention would be to leave the clear filter in place at all times, but to use my Kase 72mm magnetic system with a step up ring when needing CPL or NDs, I wonder if the increased depth of the Leica filter front rim might be of mechanical benefit.

Personally I wouldn't use stacked filters unnecessarily and would just remove the UV if I needed something else. I doubt the slim filter ring would be a problem if you need to do this, though I'm not familiar with the Kase system. But I have sometimes bought B+W filters with deeper rings from the old F-Pro range for various reasons, which you could get with MRC but not MRC-Nano coating (optically the same, but the Nano coating is supposedly somewhat easier to clean). B+W have now replaced these with the 'Basic' range with more prominent knurling on the ring (which apparently makes them easier to grip). Now that 'basic' has become a popular insult, I'm not sure the marketing department thought this through, unless the intention is to push purchasers towards what they are now calling the 'Master' range (with slimmer rings and Nano coating like the old XS-Pro).

On 9/9/2023 at 4:57 PM, mholeica said:

I got the Leica UV filter for my Q3, usually don’t use one when I was using an ILC but with fixed lens I wanted to protect it and felt compelled to put Leica glass on top of Leica glass, don’t know much about UV filters though was just worried to not affect the quality of the lens.

I would bet money that Leica subcontracts these to one of the major filter manufacturers, but they are certainly high quality.

On 9/10/2023 at 4:01 PM, bobtodrick said:

Maybe the lense wouldn’t have been damaged without a filter…but ever since then I use good brass ring filters.  Brass is meant to deform and absorb impacts.

I've seen it claimed that the alloy used by manufacturers like Hoya deforms more easily, which could be better in the situation. But I'm not about to drop a lens to find out!

[Miltz]

17 hours ago, Woodstock said:

Living in Cornwall, and being fond of coastal photography with its attendant sand and salt, I am convinced of the potential benefits of a protective filter, preferably clear but at a pinch, and entirely accepting there is no relevant wavelength effect of significance, UV. The B&W nano seems to be the one of choice, but I am somewhat concerned that the depth of the front rim, compared for example with the Leica UV filter, is quite short. Given that my intention would be to leave the clear filter in place at all times, but to use my Kase 72mm magnetic system with a step up ring when needing CPL or NDs, I wonder if the increased depth of the Leica filter front rim might be of mechanical benefit.

Does anyone have any experience of use the Kase or similar systems with the B&W?

 Grateful for any thoughts.

 

If you're going to be exposed to a lot of sand and ocean water then get one otherwise don't. I recommend the Leica filter if you're going to get one. The B&W filters were awful to clean, not sure why. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Woodstock]

Thanks for your thoughts guys, decided to go with the Leica filter, didn’t seem quite so much a financial shock when buying camera, grip, and filter all at the same time.