Can of worms - protective filter

[Robert Blanko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For my Nikon equipment I always used UV filters. 
 

For my Leica M lenses never, as they are so small and usually well-protected by a lens hood and as this avoids any further unnecessary optical element in the optical pathway.

Moreover, if the filter is crashed, the glass particles which have about the same hardness as the front lens might scratch the front lens.

But as others said, it’s just a personal preference which is endlessly debatable… 😀

Of course, in dusty environments, filters could make sense.

 

 

[BradS]

I have high quality, multi-coated UV-Haze filters on the front of all of my lenses by default - either B+W 010  or  Nikon 37c.

I got in this habit when I laid out several months' take-home pay to buy my first real camera + lens back in 1976.

[Advertisement]

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

[Al Brown]

8 hours ago, Marc B-C said:

I am not sure what has been cut here, but it does not look like corners! 😀

You got my pun.
PS. I had to cut this filter. It was giving me trouble. Kept popping on the images.

[TomB_tx]

A decade or so ago when used film equipment was really cheap I bought many cameras & lenses from various sources. Inevitably the lenses that lived without filters had scratches (or cleaning marks) on the front element, but the ones that had lived with filters attached were in much better shape. I use filters.

A side note: The cameras that had lived in their "never-ready" cases were pristine. So I limited many purchases to those.

[cboy]

Peter Karbe previously discussed in a online lecture that a filter is another element which ultimately affects quality. How much by he didn't say.

It's a trade off between peace of mind and IQ. Imo I prefer getting a high quality filter to prevent minor grazes, bumps through use and not having to bother cleaning the front element. Filters are more easily replaceable when it's dinged up than a front element. You'd be surprised how easily a lens can scrape over abrasive clothing say a front zipper 😉

 

[logan2z]

3 hours ago, cboy said:

a filter is another element which ultimately affects quality. How much by he didn't say.

That's something I used to worry about as well, but I haven't noticed any degradation in IQ when using a quality filter like a B+W.  

[BradS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suspect that scratches, finger prints, desert sand & dust and a hazy film from salt air near the ocean or air pollution each have some effect on the overall optical properties of the lens too and lenses are either expensive or irreplaceable. I'd much rather introduce an easily and inexpensively replaceable,  well known, high quality, multi-coated, optical glass layer than those others.

[Camaro5]

Here in the desert there is a lot of dust in the air.  On my modern lenses I use B+W Clear filters.  On my older R lenses that may not have coatings as good as the modern ones, I like the Leica UVa filters.

I've never noticed any change/degradation in image quality.  Even if there was a very minute difference I'd still want the protection of the filter.

[Ko.Fe.]

Zero worms on this topic, but dead hourse.

My copy-paste reply for those threads which comes in dozens of every other "photo" forum every year:

 

The only LCAG lens I have is 35 2.5 Summarit. I got it with no hood first and later with used hood.

I have it with filter and with hood. First time I had it out, f##g bird managed to bomb on it. All I have to do is to wipe it off from the hood and filter. Last thing I want is bird shit on the lens front element. No, anything, I don't want it on the lens front element.

UV is for film, clear is for digital, since digital sensors cover glass takes care of UV and such.

 

[DoubleE]

OP, I would definitely use a filter in the scenarios you describe.  Why risk hurting that beautiful glass?  Personally, I use a clear or UV filter or a hood, sometimes both.  Yellow or green when I’m outdoors for B&W.  Sometimes I’ll pull the filter for a particular shot or scene—it’s the outermost coating that matters most, so there’s that to consider.  I use Hoya and B+W mostly and a few vintage Leitz, and although I never clean a lens in the field (or let an assistant do it), I might wipe a filter on my tee shirt, if I can’t get it clean with a bulb blower.  I guess I consider them somewhat expendable, but they’ve mostly held up fine.

[Guest]

Thanks for all the replies and advice, guys.

I’ll keep the B+W clear protection filter on the lens. 😊 Better safe than sorry.

Best,

Mads

[Ouroboros]

Glad that’s sorted.  Sleep well.

[Stein K S]

Another filter guy here. Fitting one is first thing when acquiring a lens... and there it stays. Cleaning of filter done in any manner suitable/available. Few hoods used.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Stein K S

[Gobert]

Better safe than sorry. I use always protective filter, unless photografic circumstances or lens design require otherwise.

[maxpower]

The only lens I use without a filter is the 28mm Summaron (it's a pretty small piece of glass, and housed a little deeper inside its enclosure), however all of my other Leica lenses have Leica filters on them. With third party filters I sometimes had issues with the lens caps not fitting correctly. Visually I would prefer them without, but they do provide me peace of mind. 

[pgk]

12 hours ago, cboy said:

Peter Karbe previously discussed in a online lecture that a filter is another element which ultimately affects quality. How much by he didn't say.

Back in the days before coatings were applied any additional glass/air interfaces would have had the potential to increase (veiling) flare. I suspect that this is when the original question of whether to use a filter or not arose. But with todays highly efficient coatings I would defy anyone to see the difference between most lenses used with a high quality filter or not. The exception might just be ultra-wides which may have their corners marginally degraded as a result of refraction through the inevitably longer light path through the filter glass here. That said my 21mm SEM never exhibits problems with a Leica UVA.......

[pedaes]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

high quality filter or not

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

[Jeff S]

Another filter favorite from Roger…

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters/

Jeff

[pippy]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

...The exception might just be ultra-wides which may have their corners marginally degraded as a result of refraction...

I really should do some properly controlled tests to confirm matters but I strongly suspect that when using my Leitz Circ. Pola with the 35mm Summilux v2 on a Digi-M there is a bit of a drop in IQ towards the edges/corners at some aperture settings. Not so bad that anyone would notice it when viewing a print but it's something which I think I've seen when 'spotting' files at 100% or 200%.

As far as the only other two Series VII filters I own are concerned it hasn't been an issue with the UVa and I've not used the Orange filter enough to form any judgement.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

43 minutes ago, pippy said:

I really should do some properly controlled tests to confirm matters but I strongly suspect that when using my Leitz Circ. Pola with the 35mm Summilux v2 on a Digi-M there is a bit of a drop in IQ towards the edges/corners at some aperture settings. Not so bad that anyone would notice it when viewing a print but it's something which I think I've seen when 'spotting' files at 100% or 200%.

As far as the only other two Series VII filters I own are concerned it hasn't been an issue with the UVa and I've not used the Orange filter enough to form any judgement.

Philip.

In my experience polas can be problematic, especially on wide lenses in the corners. And sometimes it doesn't need 100% viewing either. My guess is that its to do with being sandwiched filters.