UV/protective filter on Q

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

Do you use UV or protective filter on your Q/Q2 for protection of the front element? Not so much for impact protection (hood serves better here) more in relation to scratches and cleaning marks?

Best and thanks, 

Mads

[jaapv]

UV filters are for umm... filtering UV.
For protection use protective filters as supplied by Heliopan and B+W (007). Stronger, thinner for less aberrations and better light transmission, nano-coated for easy cleaning, scratch-resistant.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

UV filters are for umm... filtering UV.
For protection use protective filters as supplied by Heliopan and B+W (007). Stronger, thinner for less aberrations and better light transmission, nano-coated for easy cleaning, scratch-resistant.

Thanks and sure. Question is just as much, protection filter or not?

[Viv]

I use a filter in conjunction with the lens hood.

[earleygallery]

I'll save everyone else the bother replying! There are two opinions broadly 50/50 in proportion;

1) Don't use a filter, it will degrade the image quality and cause flare and reflections and the lens and coatings are strong enough to bear repeated cleaning without 'cleaning marks'. Use the lens hood to protect your lens, when was the last time you or anyone you know actually scratched a lens anyway?!!

2) Use a filter, it is minimal cost and should the worst happen it's going to be a lot cheaper to replace than the lens! Accidents happen after all and you won't even worry cleaning a filter with the end of your shirt if you had to. You won't notice any difference in image quality and if the filter might cause reflections (night shots etc) just remove it for those shots.

The choice, as they say, is yours!

[Ouroboros]

3 hours ago, mcpallesen said:

Thanks and sure. Question is just as much, protection filter or not?

If you're photographing in camera-hostile conditions (sea spray, dust, sand, water droplets, rain, snow, fog, dew, humidity, weddings etc), use a protective filter.

If you are photographing in more camera-friendly conditions, such as a studio portrait shoot, architectural interiors etc it isn't necessary but you will notice and oily film  and dust on the front element of your lenses over a period of time. 

That's because we as a species are hell-bent on polluting our environment.  The choice is yours.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It all depends on the use of the camera. If you are going to keep it in a glass cabinet you certainly should not use a filter. Any sign of use on the filter thread will impact its value. If you want to use it as a photographic tool, a filter will allow you not to worry about your front lens. I did prefer no-filter in the past, because I <thought> I could see a minuscule quality difference, but with the advent of the 007 type filters I don’t even have that excuse left. In the end the only time I got a serious scratch on a front element was by a shard from a broken filter....

[Guest]

To everyone else, thanks for your input and replies. Much appreciated, best, M

[jcc1138]

I use a Chiaro Pro 49mm 99-UVBTS Brass UV Filter, just because I do a lot of outdoor shooting. It does sit nicely on the lens and does not affect the length of the lens with the hood attached. No difference in the photos at this time in DNG review. I do have to get my CL cleaned pretty often due to taking it hiking, so I like to protect my equipment and $30 is better if it slows down the cleaning schedule.

[T25UFO]

I use a UV filter from Breakthrough Photography - it's the best quality I have come across.  The filter probably isn't needed but I feel more comfortable with it on and never have to bother with a lens cap.

[Herr Barnack]

I use a UV filter on my Q2 and on my M lenses (21-50mm) that I use for documentary work. 

My thinking is that lenses used in close proximity to groups of people and/or crowds should have the front element protected in case of accidental contact from others.  It would be infinitely preferable to have a $40 filter scratched or dinged rather than the front element of a $3500+ lens.

I use high end UV filters - B+W MRC (multi coated) filters and I can't see any image degradation. 

YMMV.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[Jared]

Modern UV and clear filters will generally not affect image quality, and they certainly reduce the risks involved in cleaning. You can find situations where they create reflections, though. Even the best of them. Try photographing a room lit by a chandelier, for example, and look for halos around bulb filaments.

Of course, how often does one photograph chandeliers? Obviously, not that often, but anything with specular highlights will do the same. It’s a pretty minor effect, but you can tell if you look. Certainly not the difference between a good photo and a bad one, though, and the newest multi coatings and nano coatings certainly minimize other issues.

I generally prefer a lens hood for protection. The one exception is when I am really trying to minimize camera size. I have a couple of bags where my cameras juuuussst fit, and when using using those bags or when I want to avoid a lens cap for days at a time I will use a filter. Same for salt and sand environments—I use a filter.

I’m going to disagree with Jaap, though, on UV vs clear.  I prefer a UV filter. Looking at B+W’a transmission curves there is no downside to the UV and some minor potential upside in terms of haze. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Jared
Typo

[mikegml]

On 8/17/2020 at 9:06 PM, earleygallery said:

I'll save everyone else the bother replying! There are two opinions broadly 50/50 in proportion;

1) Don't use a filter, it will degrade the image quality and cause flare and reflections and the lens and coatings are strong enough to bear repeated cleaning without 'cleaning marks'. Use the lens hood to protect your lens, when was the last time you or anyone you know actually scratched a lens anyway?!!

2) Use a filter, it is minimal cost and should the worst happen it's going to be a lot cheaper to replace than the lens! Accidents happen after all and you won't even worry cleaning a filter with the end of your shirt if you had to. You won't notice any difference in image quality and if the filter might cause reflections (night shots etc) just remove it for those shots.

The choice, as they say, is yours!

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.  For the record my Q2 came with a Leica UV filter. Could I resist doing test shots with it and without it? Cause not. Could I tell the difference after zooming in to crazy levels until my head hurt?  No. Could I tell the difference when I fitted my B+W KR 1.5 skylight filter to test against the Leica UV? No. I keep the B+W filter on simply to keep crud off the lens not for protection but it helps and yeah I usually use my shirt to clean it.

[jaapv]

On 9/1/2020 at 8:11 PM, Jared said:

I’m going to disagree with Jaap,

Happy to be disagreed with, as we are arguing angels and pins anyway

[Jared]

But this is such a critical issue!  How can you take this so calmly!

[Dennis]

A nice story.
I used filters the first year I discovered photography. I was using SLR and color films, and the lens I bought had a filter. People told me it was better to protect the lens, then to regret it after a damage. One year later, I changed my mind and never used a filter again since then. I was thinking why to put a $20 glass on a $500 glass, my photo will become $20 IQ. 😒 But many years later, I had for about one year a 24-70 2.8 for my DSLR. Don't know why, but I bought a filter for it. Maybe because It was my most expensive lens ever, I was scared! Once during an event, the lens felt in the flor from about one-meter height. The filter crashed, it was utterly destroyed, the lens and his first piece of glass were perfectly safe. Awesome. Don't ask me why, since then, I didn't put another filter on my lenses. I was so lucky for that particular time that I saved my lens, and despite that, no more filters. Blessed once, but still brave and ready to embrace my full IQ—end of the story.
 
For example, I would soon get a 35CV 1.2III. No hood included. The original one is expensive and a little bit big. I just want to protect the glass of the lens, nothing more; I don't care about the flare. So instead of finding a third party lens on eBay, why doesn't try out a filter? It entirely complies its function to protect the glass, w/o taking space 🙂 I think that if the filter doesn't change my IQ (or I can't tell you the difference), I would surely prefer it rather than a hood. It's smaller, super tiny, and it makes your camera set more discrete. 
 
How risky is it to use filters? Let's pretend for a moment we lose 3% IQ. So, if I lose that 3% cause my filter, I can entirely live with that. But it gives me in exchange the discretion and the smallest package I want for me and my way to shoot, and I prefer it over the IQ perfection ... I see many photographers seeking for that 100% IQ. They worry more about the risk of losing that 3%, rather than happily enjoying and embracing 97%, with peace of mind. 🤷‍♂️
I'm not a pixel peeper, and I feel comfortable with "only" 97%. 

Nowadays, the filters are almost perfect? Can the average pro photographer tell the difference? I can't answer this. What do you think?

 

 

 

 

[jaapv]

Well, the difference is nothing like 3%. More like 0.003%.