Leica Summarit 35 2.4 ASPH does the image quality suffer when using a Leica UVa filter?

[M Street Photographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use the Summarit with the sun visor. It is a Leica UV a filter 13004. Since there is no lens cap that fits the lens hood, I wonder if, and if so, the image quality (coloration and sharpness) suffers from using the filter. Or is there a possibility that the filter has negative effects depending on the weather (summer, winter, sun, rain, temperature fluctuations)?
It only serves as protection, because unfortunately it has already happened to me that I have touched the glas of the lens, when I take it out of my pocket.

As a camera I use the M10 R. I hope your experiences can help me to answer this question.

Thank you in advance for your support.

[Jean-Michel]

With the exception of Noctilux and lenses with protruding front element, such as the WATE, a clear or UV filter has zero negative effect on images. There is a whole lot of quasi religious opinions on for or against the use of a “protective “ clear filter on lenses. All that I can say is that after fifty years of using everything from large format to 35 mm format lenses I have not seen any problems with using filters, clear or coloured. 

[earleygallery]

Eh? You have the lens, the filter and the camera. Just shoot a couple of shots with and without the filter and make your own mind up.

If you shoot night time scenes you might find that bright lights will cause reflections in the image as the light bounces off the sensor and filter. Otherwise I'd be interested to hear if you can see any difference.

[Anbaric]

1 hour ago, M Street Photographer said:

I use the Summarit with the sun visor. It is a Leica UV a filter 13004. Since there is no lens cap that fits the lens hood, I wonder if, and if so, the image quality (coloration and sharpness) suffers from using the filter. Or is there a possibility that the filter has negative effects depending on the weather (summer, winter, sun, rain, temperature fluctuations)?
It only serves as protection, because unfortunately it has already happened to me that I have touched the glas of the lens, when I take it out of my pocket.

As a camera I use the M10 R. I hope your experiences can help me to answer this question.

Thank you in advance for your support.

The most common situation where filters may be problematic is when shooting into the sun or with other bright light sources in the frame (like city lights at night) when you can get flare. In this case, a modern multi-coated filter will be better than a single-coated filter, which will be better than an uncoated filter of otherwise similar quality. Current Leica filters are multi-coated. See this UV filter test from a few years ago:

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

Ignore the stuff about UV absorption, etc., just have a look at the flare photos for each test. A current Leica filter is probably equivalent to a multi-coated B+W or Hoya filter (and may well be made by one of these companies for Leica). See for example:

B+W multicoated vs B+W single-coated vs Tiffen (probably uncoated and lower quality).

An older Leica filter may not be multi-coated, and even though it will obviously be of high quality, it is still likely to flare when shooting into the light. By all means do your own tests, but make sure you include challenging conditions where flare may be an issue.

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Anbaric

[jankap]

1 hour ago, M Street Photographer said:

It only serves as protection, because unfortunately it has already happened to me that I have touched the glas of the lens, when I take it out of my pocket.

I use neither protective filters nor hoods. I use lens caps!

By the way, since the movie "Easy Rider" lens flaring is allowed.😜

Edited November 20, 2022 by jankap

[Jean-Michel]

10 minutes ago, jankap said:

I use neither protective filters nor hoods. I use lens caps!

 Maybe this way 😄😄😄😄 

 

[M Street Photographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First of all I want to thank you all so far.
I've already done some tests in daylight, with and without a filter. Well, sometimes it's like that when you have a suspicion, you're unsure and not always objective.
But I'll follow her advice and test again, looking for bright lights reflections, day and night shots of light sources, with and without filters.

Since I only found my way back to the M a few months ago and have to get to know the camera and lenses again, there is occasionally a little uncertainty.

On other systems, apart from polarization filters, I didn't use any, just a geli. But I have to admit that my other equipment was not worth as much to me as the M is to me today.

[Anbaric]

31 minutes ago, jankap said:

By the way, since the movie "Easy Rider" lens flaring is allowed.😜

You can have too much of a good thing. 🙂

 

[earleygallery]

39 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

First of all I want to thank you all so far.
I've already done some tests in daylight, with and without a filter. Well, sometimes it's like that when you have a suspicion, you're unsure and not always objective.
But I'll follow her advice and test again, looking for bright lights reflections, day and night shots of light sources, with and without filters.

Since I only found my way back to the M a few months ago and have to get to know the camera and lenses again, there is occasionally a little uncertainty.

On other systems, apart from polarization filters, I didn't use any, just a geli. But I have to admit that my other equipment was not worth as much to me as the M is to me today.

FWIW I can't see any real world difference with or without a filter and mostly use them for protection on my lenses. If I'm shooting where reflections might be an issue it's easy enough to remove the filter for those shots.

I'm not sure at what point in time the use of filters became questionable. I was always under the impression that they were an essential part of serious photography (filters for B&W, colour correction filters, polarisers). Yes digital means that many functions of the filter can be acheived by software. Back in the film days I never heard anyone suggest that using a filter would ruin the image quality of a lens.

[Anbaric]

52 minutes ago, Jean-Michel said:

 Maybe this way 😄😄😄😄 

Another graduate of the Eric Clapton and Victoria Beckham School of Photography.

[cboy]

Peter karbe remarked in a webinar that any  additional element ultimately affects picture quality, but in saying that how much by he didn't say. Perhaps if one is a pixel peeper they can see any negligible difference, but more likely than not IQ  issues are more attributed to human error so id wouldn't worry. It's now common for those using a modern lenses like the summarit to use a diffusion black mist filter to add distortion / character to a otherwise bland picture perfect image. Go figure 

Edited November 21, 2022 by cboy

[pedaes]

11 hours ago, M Street Photographer said:

I've already done some tests in daylight, with and without a filter

Bold statement, but you will not see any effect of clear filter in any test you do. Neither have many others before you.

It's simple. If you want to protect your front element use a good quality filter. If you are not fussed, leave it naked. 

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

Edited November 21, 2022 by pedaes

[Anbaric]

22 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Bold statement, but you will not see any effect of clear filter in any test you do. Neither have many others before you.

It's simple. If you want to protect your front element use a good quality filter. If you are not fussed, leave it naked. 

You'd be hard put to see any difference with a high quality filter in many situations, but have a look at the flare tests in the lenstip link above. Here is the multi-coated version of the Heliopan, a high quality filter from a respected German manufacturer:

https://www.lenstip.com/113.12-article-UV_filters_test_Heliopan_ES_72mm_UV-0_SH-PMC.html

With the sun or a bright streetlight in the flame, the test images are clearly worse with the filter than without. There are more subtle but visible differences in the tests of other high quality multi-coated filters, and very clear differences with single-coated or uncoated filters, even from good manufacturers.

[spydrxx]

In most normal situations you will not notice any degradation, but as many above mentioned, some specific situations which involve flare and internal reflections can degrade the image as the light has more layers to penetrate.

[M Street Photographer]

Thanks for your replies so far. My tendency is to leave the filter out. At this time of the year, I'm often out and about in lowlight and in the evening. So why use a filter when there could be problems with stray light.
One less point to worry about.

[jankap]

Don't worry, take pictures! This and your vacuum cleaner or your grass mower simply are industry products.

[Anbaric]

Though I've emphasised the potential for flare, since the original question was about whether there'd be problems in certain conditions, I use filters often (and routinely with many lenses). This may be because where I live, windblown rain and grit particles that get on the lens (even with a hood) seem to be more common than sunbeams, and I'd rather clean the filter! But of course there are situations where I take the filter off. I also have some older lenses that flare easily all by themselves, so the extra contribution from a filter is not going to make things significantly worse - with these lenses I'm just careful how I use them.

[lct]

Main problem is not that much filters per se but filters without hood IMHO. Could someone explain with better words than mine that it is the best way to get flare?

[Herr Barnack]

16 hours ago, Jean-Michel said:

 Maybe this way 😄😄😄😄 

 

It's not a lens cap, it's a -895 billion EV neutral density filter.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[matted]

15 hours ago, earleygallery said:

FWIW I can't see any real world difference with or without a filter and mostly use them for protection on my lenses. If I'm shooting where reflections might be an issue it's easy enough to remove the filter for those shots.

I'm not sure at what point in time the use of filters became questionable. I was always under the impression that they were an essential part of serious photography (filters for B&W, colour correction filters, polarisers). Yes digital means that many functions of the filter can be acheived by software. Back in the film days I never heard anyone suggest that using a filter would ruin the image quality of a lens.

For specific purposes, yes, they were always a part of serious photography, however the idea of having one on all of the time being a no-no has been around longer than digital; my first film teacher when discussing the matter said "Why would I put a $10 filter in front of a $1500 lens?".

Edited November 21, 2022 by matted