50mm APO with protection filter: Waste of money?

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Definitely protection filter on mine. No one but no one will be able to give you any proof/evidence  of the slightest of image degradation with a quality filter (B+W, Leica).

[Advertisement]

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

[MarkP]

Yes! Wouldn’t it be wonderful to open your camera bag and find your APO 50mm and your 35mm Cron have reproduced. What will the children turn out to be?

Another reason to avoid those flat glass prophylactics ;-) Edited June 5, 2018 by MarkP

[ELAN]

I never use filters, I let the hood protect the front element and never had a problem. 

 

But recently I got the 50 APO LHSA and hated that monster hood, so I decided to use a filter for the very first time.  Three days later this happened:

 

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!

[Lukas F.]

Yes, it's a disgrace.

[WhippingPost]

Yes! Wouldn’t it be wonderful to open your camera bag and find your APO 50mm and your 35mm Cron have reproduced. What will the children turn out to be?

 

Their offspring will be called MATE. But if they cannot WATE to have kids, their offspring will likely turn out to be Summakids of Elmakids

[Ecar]

I never use filters, I let the hood protect the front element and never had a problem. 

 

But recently I got the 50 APO LHSA and hated that monster hood, so I decided to use a filter for the very first time.  Three days later this happened:

 

Ouch.

Although it's good to see that this lens is actually being used and not kept it in a safebox.

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I prefer not to use filters on my own lenses, but when I buy secondhand, I am very happy if they say that they have always used a filter on it. 

[ELAN]

Ouch.

Although it's good to see that this lens is actually being used and not kept it in a safebox.

The lens wasn’t harmed at all, thanks to the soft aluminum filter that took the impact. It sports a new filter now. The lens is used daily and treated like any of my other lenses - it’s been to the beach, through a sand storm and rained on for days. It’s built like a tank and will serve me for many years to come.

[pgk]

The lens wasn’t harmed at all, thanks to the soft aluminum filter that took the impact. It sports a new filter now.

 

I tend to repair such bent filters with a pair of needlenose pliers. If the glass and lens itself are undamaged, why pay out for a new filter when the old is serviceable?

[Herr Barnack]

and what sizes are the prints in order to differentiate between IQ with/without the UV filter ?

 

The loss of IQ should be discernible to the unaided human eye when printed to 6x9.

 

Feet, that is.

[ELAN]

I tend to repair such bent filters with a pair of needlenose pliers. If the glass and lens itself are undamaged, why pay out for a new filter when the old is serviceable?

I think the rim was warped or the thread damaged as it’s no longer smooth to screw on and off. The aluminum filters are much softer than the brass ones. Besides, a new one looks better...

[darylgo]

Sure, put a filter on there, some will say that will turn your lens into a Thambar.  I would be happy to have that versatility in a lens but it doesn't and you will just be disappointed to find no difference in imaging. 

[david strachan]

Lens hood only...except in hostile environments like beaches, and at sea...use a filter for protection.

 

OTOH no problems when filters may add... M8 with UV-IR, or B&W cameras, or IR. Some like polarizers. And sometimes they are absolutely necessary.

 

If you need to use them, well...use them...not the end of the earth...can add to your photography.

 

I just don't see the angst is necessary...all part of the arsenal.

 

 

...

Edited June 6, 2018 by david strachan

[David North]

Really just echoing what some other Forum members have already said and as such, no new revelations.

 

I use the Leica UVa II (13030) and have taken like for like images, both with this filter off and with this filter on.  For the life of me I cannot see any difference to the images and certainly to my eye, no obvious impairment in any shape or form with the filter in place.  None whatsoever.  For myself, the filter is there for the real time and the long term protection of the lens.  No more and no less.  When out and about, my body and lens are carried over my shoulder and I do not use any cases or bags.  As fully expected, the rim of the excellent lens hood has taken a few hits and these scars remind me of the potential vulnerability of the lens, if unprotected.  Also, when I on occassions clean the filter, I am comfortable in knowing that I am gently removing the coating from a reasonably inexpensive piece of screw on kit, rather than the coating from a reasonably expensive lens.

 

Regards and best wishes,

 

David

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!

[colint544]

Habitually I only ever use a filter on my Leica M lenses if it's an ND, or a colour filter to darken a sky in a mono picture. Most of the time there is no filter over the lens I'm shooting with. In 20 years, I've managed never to scratch or damage a front element. And I use all my lenses a lot.

 

A lens hood protects the front glass pretty well, especially from fingerprints. I get additional peace of mind knowing that there'll be no unwanted reflections from an additional piece of glass over the front of my expensive Leica lens, especially at night.

 

But seeing how a filter has protected the front element of that eye-wateringly expensive retro 50mm APO Summicron, I wonder if perhaps I've just been lucky so far. Maybe it's time to start using a clear filter full-time..

Edited June 6, 2018 by colint544

[MarkP]

 

 

I wonder if perhaps I've just been lucky so far. Maybe it's time to start using a clear filter full-time..

 

Probably careful AND lucky.  Over the years I've had filters save three lenses.

[colint544]

Probably careful AND lucky.  Over the years I've had filters save three lenses.

 

I did once have a Nikon 80-200 lens that I fitted with a UV filter as soon as I took it out of its box. That lens served me faithfully for about eight years, until I switched to a Canon system. By that time the lens looked well used - barrel was shiny instead of matte, paint was missing, etc. Took the filter off for the first time, and marvelled at the perfect front element. Not even a speck of dust on it.

[Mark II]

Definitely protection filter on mine. No one but no one will be able to give you any proof/evidence  of the slightest of image degradation with a quality filter (B+W, Leica).

Not true! I have had more problems of flare with Leica lenses than anything else. In particular, lenses with concave front elements can give horrific flare patterns that obliterate an image when shot in to the sun with a filter mounted.

 

This is not the best example of a failure - I delete the unusable shots - but you get the general idea. It was shot on film with a B&W MRC filter (yellow or orange - I do not remember which) with a 28mm Summicron v2, looking towards the sun. Comparable images at the same time without the filter show much less impact, although obviously not none. Unfortunately you do not see the extent of any problem until after the films are developed...

 

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!

 

FWIW, the worst combo for this that I have is the 50mm Summilux ASPH fitted with a 3 stop B&W ND filter. Shoot in to the sun wide open and occasionally things line up to obliterate the image - as if the light bounces multiple times between the front element and the filter. The Zeiss c-sonnar is considerably better, both with and without a filter fitted.

 

So I only use filters when absolutely necessary, and I try not to destroy my lenses though carelessness!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

People stating that filters don't cause flare never shoot against the light or use another word than flare to call reflections i guess.

[pgk]

People stating that filters don't cause flare never shoot against the light or use another word than flare to call reflections i guess.

 

Well I do, a lot! Flare happens and whilst it can be exacerbated by use of a filter at times, it is possible to take the filter off. I've had two lenses saved by the filter - one filter smashed to pieces and one dented (but repairable). Judging by the grot I'm forever wiping off my filters (I view them as expendable and buy used as cheap as I can), I would rather clean filters than expensive front elements. Definitive statements about what is right and wrong to do in photography are hard to absolutely substantiate, however..... I was talking to a portrait photographer a week or so back and we both agreed that neither of us had ever lost work or an image usage because of the lens we had used. As I always use filters (except very occasionally) you can draw your own conclusions. FWIW there is a big difference between images being fit for purpose and nuances of difference in them attributable to the lens being used and/or whether a filter is being used. Good technique and understanding what you are trying to do is more importat than using the finest lens with or without a filter (that IS a definitive statement   .