UV lens protection

[Ronaldraw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, RoySmith said:

Good point.

So use a filter 😉

[Herr Barnack]

18 hours ago, CAP said:

Don't forget that if you damage the lens in any way you can't just replace the lens on a Q camera.

Good point.  With the Q2 and Q2M, the stakes are very high.

I never used protective filters on my Nikon lenses because I was almost always shooting landscape and nature subjects.

With my M lenses, I have UV filters on 50mm and wider lenses that I use for street photography and documentary as a protective measure when shooting in close proximity to people.  This is to protect against accidental contact to the front element of the lens when shooting in close quarters with my subjects.

I have never been able to see any image degradation in my images that is caused by my B+W UV filters that are made of Schott glass.  Perhaps it is there at the molecular level, but if you can't see it - is it really an issue to worry about?

Edited January 14, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[nwphil]

the protection filter discussion is like a neverending story....

As I see it - no, modern cameras need UV filter - except I believe, only for the M8,

Clear filters are a double-edged sword - in one side they help protect against wind propelled sand for instance, but not against blunt impacts like a hood does - actually filters can make matters worse.

They might bring extra glare  in some situations but they are easy and safer to clean fingerprints smudges and water droplets from,.

So, in the end it's a gamble and personal choice - it seems that a good quality clear filer will cause no issues, other than thinning out your own wallet.

I use then in a few situations, and with a few specific lenses, but not all the time.

ps:  note that protective filters are more than just clear filters. They do need good coatings to minimize reflections and are a bit thicker/more impact resistant than ordinary filters; therefore not all are up to snuff as mfr might claim 

Edited January 14, 2021 by nwphil

[Guest]

I use a protective filter on my Q2 just bc it's a fixed lens camera. Don't use one on my Canon setup.

Since we're talking protection, I keep my lens hood on most of the time and it saved my bacon the other day. I dropped my Q2 from chest level. First time I dropped a camera. The metal hood dented. Once I took it off, I couldn't put it back on. But the camera escaped with no other damage besides couple very small scratches. 

[Ronaldraw]

27 minutes ago, yohan said:

I use a protective filter on my Q2 just bc it's a fixed lens camera. Don't use one on my Canon setup.

Since we're talking protection, I keep my lens hood on most of the time and it saved my bacon the other day. I dropped my Q2 from chest level. First time I dropped a camera. The metal hood dented. Once I took it off, I couldn't put it back on. But the camera escaped with no other damage besides couple very small scratches. 

Good to hear 👍

[nwphil]

2 hours ago, yohan said:

I use a protective filter on my Q2 just bc it's a fixed lens camera. Don't use one on my Canon setup.

Since we're talking protection, I keep my lens hood on most of the time and it saved my bacon the other day. I dropped my Q2 from chest level. First time I dropped a camera. The metal hood dented. Once I took it off, I couldn't put it back on. But the camera escaped with no other damage besides couple very small scratches. 

I would be a bit more proactive, and send it in for further inspection at Leica...

talking from experience, dropping a 1Dx with lens attached - actually was a snap lock mishap from my part as I did not notice the clap was not fully engaged. Anyway, the metal hood took all the impact , was severely bent and was not going back in. The lens itself looked ok, and was focusing, and at first sight nothing wrong. Till  later I noticed that a close focus the ring felt a bit tight.

Send it out for inspection, and the focus mechanism was indeed  a bit out of place - had to be adjusted and was not a cheap fix.

So, hate to say it to you, but hopefully you have homeowner insurance that covers personal items - accidents like this get covered. At best, you will have peace of mind, and miss the Q2M for a couple weeks

Edited January 16, 2021 by nwphil

[paul.bridges.3388]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seeking the unique buttery Leica micro-contrast is my justification for spending $$$$ on native glass. I figure that Leica spent $$$ ensuring the lens coating is ideal for this. Potential impact of a UV filter on incident light jeopardises it and so I avoid.

*All of the above may only be valid in my mind.

[Guest]

On 1/16/2021 at 11:44 AM, nwphil said:

I would be a bit more proactive, and send it in for further inspection at Leica...

talking from experience, dropping a 1Dx with lens attached - actually was a snap lock mishap from my part as I did not notice the clap was not fully engaged. Anyway, the metal hood took all the impact , was severely bent and was not going back in. The lens itself looked ok, and was focusing, and at first sight nothing wrong. Till  later I noticed that a close focus the ring felt a bit tight.

Send it out for inspection, and the focus mechanism was indeed  a bit out of place - had to be adjusted and was not a cheap fix.

So, hate to say it to you, but hopefully you have homeowner insurance that covers personal items - accidents like this get covered. At best, you will have peace of mind, and miss the Q2M for a couple weeks

Good pointers. I'll use it a bit and observe files more than I normally do. Haven't noticed anything so far.