Heliopan UV/IR filters -- any info?

[Kent10D]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone had any experience with Heliopan UV/IR filters?

Any comments on quality and/or compatibility with the M8?

 

Any info would be much appreciated.

 

Cheers,

 

Kent.

[rvaubel]

Has anyone had any experience with Heliopan UV/IR filters?

Any comments on quality and/or compatibility with the M8?

 

Any info would be much appreciated.

 

Cheers,

 

Kent.

 

I have a 77mm which I bought a couple years ago for my Canon 20Da which was a special astronomical model produced with a very weak IR filter. I've used it on both my RD1 and my M8, both of which can use it especially the Leica. It seems to work fine and the quality is impeccable. I do remember the IR adsorbtion graph is a little different than the B+W 486 but I don't think anyone, including Leica (maybe especially Leica!) knows with any degree of cetainty what the optimal adsorbtion pattern should be. I think, to some extent, the absorbtion pattern is subjective anyway.

 

I wouldn't hesitate in using them if I could get a good price. However they tend to be pretty expensive as they are coated on BOTH sides and have a water shielding/protective cover on the exposed side.

 

good luck if you find some

 

Rex

[Advertisement]

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

[glenerrolrd]

I have used Heliopan Digital filters (UV/IR) as well as B&W 486 and Leica UV/IR . While they are slightly different in how much IR they block , in practical use I find them interchangable. Because Leica will try to tune the M8 software to their filters , I am attempting to obtain a Leica UV/IR for each lens. In the case of my Noctilux, which is an older version (58mm thread ) I will continue to use the Heliopan.

[Kent10D]

Thanks guys,

 

That's what I was hoping to hear. If the Heliopan filters are well made and can be used in place of Leica or B+W filters with no appreciable difference in real-world peformance, then they become a viable alternative. Of course the "tuned for leica filters" thing is an issue, and I have been seeing excellent results with the Leica filters that I have, but they're just hard to find, expensive and, as discussed in another lengthy thread, the 43-mm version doesn't fit Zeiss lenses properly.

 

Excellent news! Choice is good.

 

Cheers,

 

Kent.

[wlaidlaw]

Kent,

 

I used to use a radially graduated, neutral density, multi coated Heliopan on my Biogon 21mm G on my Contax G2. It was better than the Zeiss, which to my eyes seemed to over-compensate for the fairly limited vignetting that the 21B had.

 

Wilson

[Artichoke]

they are excellent

the differences between them & the BW or Leica filters that I use is marginal ...someone did a comparison here some time back, IMSMC and the consensus was that the Heliopan & BW filters were slightly stronger in their filtration ...from what I have seen the Heliopan may filter a bit more ir, but I have not seen much in the way of vignetting with it ...with WA lenses greater than 24 mm this may make a difference from Leica's with coding, but again I have not seen this to any great degree ...the main differences between the Heliopan/BW/Leica ir/cut filters may be their coatings ...I have found Heliopan filters outstanding for flare resistance

according to a very knowledgeable Leica dealer (who also stocks Heliopan filters, so caveat applies, I suppose,) Leica's ir/cut filters are now manufactured by Heliopan

there has been gobs of information about this on this forum & you may wish to sort through the different experiences by doing a search, but there is a great deal to read

btw, I prefer Heliopan polarizers ...they are etched on the ring with numbers which makes setting them simple & their build are first rate

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I tested the Heliopan Digital filter against the 486 in my 'M8 Updates" article. There are differences between the two but the differences aren't major.

 

Cheers,

[Guest tummydoc]

I have all Heliopan filters plus the 2 free ones from Leica. Those are on my 21 and 28, because I ordered them in anticipation of the firmware being "tuned" to them. In practice I found that the firmware correction is an average-value and even with the Leica filters I can see where it over- or under- corrects in different light and with subjects that reflect different amount of IR. I've found any and all IR filters still require some hand-correction whenever the parameters fall outside the average. Were it not for them being free I would use Heliopans all round. I have found their coatings to be more scratch-resistant as well as less apt to produce flare than the B+W, of which I had several that I had to discard because they were rife with cleaning marks despite me being careful to the point of anal, and which also flared quite easily especially indoors with bright overhead bulbs. My Leica filters are too new to judge their durability, but I have experienced some flare which I did not get with Heliopans.

[wlaidlaw]

I would go along with Vinay about the B+W being a bit flare prone. I have had some nasty flare from the B+W's, admittedly in difficult contre-jour lighting. However I have also been taking with the Leica filters, in similar circumstances and have yet to have an OMG flare moment. I feel it is a little bit "head in the sand" that Leica is only producing filters in Leica lens sizes. It is the same argument as manual lens coding. People will use different makes of lens on M8's and Leica ought to be making an opportunity out of this, not putting difficulties in the way. After all, it is we the users, who have bought the camera. I started out thinking I would be nearly all Zeiss glass on my M8, being a Zeiss lens fan for over 40 years. However I now have 2 Zeiss, 3 Leica, 1 Zenitar and 1 Voigtlander in the post. That is the problem with the M8 - you take a shot and when you look at it afterwards, you say "yes good but if I had used a Noctilux etc. on that it would have been great." Over the years, Leica fortunes have been based on that. However, Leica cannot cope with current demand for lenses so there is no advantage in their being dog in the manger and trying to make life that bit more awkward for non-Leica lens use.

 

Wilson

[Kent10D]

The flare issue is interesting.

 

I'm guessing that the Heliopan filters are more resistant to flare because they're coated on both sides? They seem to be a tad more expensive than the B+W equivalents, but it's not a huge difference, so if you're getting greater flrare resistance it's certainy worth it.

 

Kent.

[sean_reid]

According to the optical engineer I interviewed,one can't AR coat over the IR-cut coating.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[rvaubel]

According to the optical engineer I interviewed,one can't AR coat over the IR-cut coating.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Wrong

 

Rex

[adan]

My experience using the Heliopans is that they work fine for 50mm and longer, and that they mostly work fine for 15mm-28mm, but create just a hair more green tint in the corners, using Leica's v. 1.102 corrections. Easy to correct the small difference - but eventually I will have all Leica filters for my 15/21/28s, and happily use the Helios on 50 and longer.

 

For some reason the 39mm Heliopans have an extra ridge around the front, that makes for a sloppy fit with slip-on lens caps (e.g. those for the collapsible 50/90 Elmars currently in production) - they work better with snap-on caps.

[wlaidlaw]

For some reason the 39mm Heliopans have an extra ridge around the front, that makes for a sloppy fit with slip-on lens caps (e.g. those for the collapsible 50/90 Elmars currently in production) - they work better with snap-on caps.

 

The lens cap on the Elmar 50 is a pretty sloppy bit of work anyway. Mine has dropped off quite a few times. It is only a matter of time before I don't notice and lose it. The fit and security of the lens cap on my 1947 Elmar is far better than that on my 2007 Elmar - 60 years of progress?

 

Wilson