Skylight filters

[WPCello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am currently shooting with 3.5 Summaron and 2.0 Summicron on my M-D (Type 262).  I generally use an E. Leitz N.Y SL filter primarily for protection as I live in a marine environment of the west coast of Washington.  I have read recently that such use may not be advisable on a digital camera as image quality may be compromised although frankly I did not quite understand why.  I realize that such filters have a slight  warming effect when used with color film.  Both lenses are older examples.

[marchyman]

Lensrentals has a several articles on filters and what they may do to your image.  Some links:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/05/yet-another-post-about-my-issues-with-uv-filters/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/09/looking-at-clear-and-uv-filter-spectrograms/

 

Short answer: some filters are terrible, some are fine.

[Chuck Albertson]

UV or skylight filters aren't as necessary for digital cams as they are for color film. I used a skylight filter for film when I was shooting in the upper elevations of the Cascades and Olympics, a UV filter the rest of the time. The skylight filter filtered out the extra UV at higher altitudes. A UV filter can come in handy for a digicam to protect the front element of your lens from the weather (especially important over on the coast), but keep in mind that whenever you introduce another element with two reflecting sides, there is bound to be some degradation of the image. A multi-coated filter is best, I use a B+W, Heliopan or one of the Hoya HD3 series.

[84bravo]

I use high quality (BW or Leica) UV filters on all of my Leica lenses strictly for protection. I've heard the argument that such filters may diminish quality, and in theory I agree. However, I am a working photographer and I use my gear hard. The protection provided by the clear filter outweighs any very small image degradation that they may cause. In a very few instances I can see where the filters cause a problem. For instance when photographing by candlelight with the light source in the frame I often get reflections from the filter. This seems to be an issue more with digital than I remember with film. For those times I take the filters off.

[Einst_Stein]

I find it's very difficult to keep the lens surface clean. The dusts in the air are like magnetics. They introduce degradation no less than a good filter.

I have Chiaro 99% transmission filter with excellent quality and price. I think the 99% spec is a little conservative. With a little more money you can get B+W 99.8% transmission UV filter.  

[darylgo]

My testing of filters and looking at many images shows in general that a single filter will not degrade image quality.  Multicoated doesn’t matter in most situations, it matters with flare and shooting into a light source.  Two filters will degrade images, and is very evident with variable ND filters, the best I’ve seen are the Tiffen (cheap).  I use protective filters and simply remove them when the image is effected.  

 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't use UV filters; they are made to filter UV, and not for protection, although they used to be the best option we had.

Skylight is worse, those are pink and will throw colour balance out of kilter and all are of older design, with previous-generation coatings and rather thick (=more aberrations) .

All major brands offer protective filters, that are designed for protection, using thinner, tougher glass and offer the least degradation.

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Don't use UV filters; they are made to filter UV, and not for protection, although they used to be the best option we had.

Skylight is worse, those are pink and will throw colour balance out of kilter and all are of older design, with previous-generation coatings and rather thick (=more aberrations) .

All major brands offer protective filters, that are designed for protection, using thinner, tougher glass and offer the least degradation.

All B+W protective/UV filter are made of Schott glass, so I assume they have the same impact resistance strength, but there are variations on multi-layer coating (w/wo extra coating layer for water/moisture handing), mounting ring material (w/wo titanium color enhanced ring), and cut-off light wave length (UV/Haze 010 vs. Clear 070). 

I assume the extra coating layers is desirable, the enhanced ring material is less so if the filter stays forever, but not sure about the UV vs Clear. I haven't find anything that mentions they have different strength (except your posts).

[pedaes]

For those of us with silver/chrome lenses, the new B + W T (Titanium) range are great. In Clear and UV options. https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/newslist-homepage/t-pro-filter-range

[jaapv]

45 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

All B+W protective/UV filter are made of Schott glass, so I assume they have the same impact resistance strength, but there are variations on multi-layer coating (w/wo extra coating layer for water/moisture handing), mounting ring material (w/wo titanium color enhanced ring), and cut-off light wave length (UV/Haze 010 vs. Clear 070). 

I assume the extra coating layers is desirable, the enhanced ring material is less so if the filter stays forever, but not sure about the UV vs Clear. I haven't find anything that mentions they have different strength (except your posts).

You assume wrong - B+W claim extrathin high-impact-resistant glass for their 007 filters. Not only the protective filters have dirt/moisture  resistant, easy-clean nano coating, they offer it as well on other filters.

[Einst_Stein]

10 minutes ago, jaapv said:

You assume wrong - B+W claim extrathin high-impact-resistant glass for their 007 filters. Not only the protective filters have dirt/moisture  resistant, easy-clean nano coating, they offer it as well on other filters.

Where do you see this? Do you have a pointer?

[jdlaing]

https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/photo-optics/b-w-filters/filtertypes/vorlage/uv-clear

[T25UFO]

Or this:

https://breakthrough.photography/products/x4-uv?variant=31478833169

 

[dabrez]

I sometimes think we are debating marketing terms, not technical definitions when it comes to a products "high-Impact-resistantance." Is there a scientific measurement of "Impact-resistantance on these filters?" If so then we can compare the difference between the two filters and make logical decisions not emotional ones. Any impact on glass can cause issues, the impact may create a scratch or shatter the filter. But my goal is only having to take the filter off and replace it with a new one. Hopefully mylens survives unaffected.

My biggest concerns are more with the transmission curves than impact resistance. The difference between the 007 and 010UV is minimal.

[martinot]

It is even debatable, from a protection point of view (ignoring any possible changes to the light), if it is better, or in fact worse with a filter on the camera.

Personally I do not use any filter on any of my lenses.

[a.noctilux]

Over decades, I use protection filter when needed ONLY, and in normal (without danger for front lens) situation, I don't use UVa or Skylight filter.

Some newly (well from 1990's) designed lenses can include the "neutral" or UV front filter for protection.

 

Two experiences...which deny my non-filter perspective.

My surprise when I bought the nice Angenieux 3x70 Zoom in R mount, ( like this one ...) it came with matched thin neutral filter at front, so I cheched for the difference

with/without this filter, and saw that it was a bit "better" in general use with Kodachrome, so I decided to let the filter on the Zoom since then.

 

The other is Apo-Telyt-R 4/280mm with the front neutral filter not mean to be removable !

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!

 

And neutral removable rear filter drawer !

When I removed this Series 5.5, one of the best Leica R lens became more "common performer"

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by a.noctilux

[jaapv]

18 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Some newly (well from 1990's) designed lenses can include the "neutral" or UV front filter for protection.

Yes - for instance the APO-Telyt-R 280/4.0. I scratched mine - and that cost me the equivalent of 450 Euro - in 1996. 🙄

[martinot]

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

Yes - for instance the APO-Telyt-R 280/4.0. I scratched mine - and that cost me the equivalent of 450 Euro - in 1996. 🙄

Yet I know of people having spend way more than 450 Euros for buying filters for all their lenses (the few cases I buy filter to use on lenses in special problematic situations, I prefer to only invest in really good quality filters from B&W, Sigma, etc., and those do cost some € compared to "cheap" bad ones).

So take that into consideration that you might financially still be on the "+" side.

Edited August 29, 2020 by martinot

[jaapv]

Not really. 450 Euros equivalent then is probably the same as 1000 Euros now...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Since I have the bad habit of cleaning my lenses with the nearest usable thing to hand (my fleece pullover today for example) I find filters essential or my lenses would be trashed. They are good protection against owners like myself.