Leica Q2 Filter

[L-user]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I just acquired a Q2. Need some advice whether I should get the Leica E49 lens filter which is quite expensive or a compatible one like from B+W. Is there any reason why Leica’s is priced very high? Thank you.

[dpitt]

B+W has good filters, I use some of them as UV/IR cut filters for my M8. I do have Leica UV/IR cust filters too and never really noticed an optical difference although I did not do systematic tests, so there might be small differences if you do lab like tests.

One thing I noticed on my M39 lenses, is that Leica filters allow the push on caps to be used as if the filter is not on. With the B+W filter the push on cap loses grip so can not be used. I bought some cheap 39mm click caps that fit inside the filter thread. These work fine regardless brand or if filter is on or not.

I noticed the price difference between Leica and other manufacturers varies with size. The more uncommon sizes (for Leica lenses) are most expensive. 49mm is not common for Leica lenses.

Edited February 1, 2023 by dpitt

[Advertisement]

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

[darylgo]

My use of the two brands shows minimal if any difference.  Brass or aluminum?  I’d choose brass except that Leica makes the best aluminum mounts and I’ve had zero lock ups with them.  
 

This article may help, a bit old now but the take aways continue to be relevant:

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

[BrettWayne]

It might sound odd but if you research it Nikon filters are 2nd to none in my opinion, and second only to Leica according to the article posted above. The only problem is the most prevalent Nikon filters come in 52mm including the NC filter. If you’re on a Q2 Monochrom the real answer for me is Nikon 52mm via a screw-on hood made for Nikon 28mm via a 49mm-52mm step up ring. That gives me a choice of 10 grades of contrast filters for monochrome versus Leica’s basic 3 E49 B&W filters. Nikons are brass too. If you only need a clear protective filter for Color Q2 just go with the 49mm Leica filter though as it will likely just remain on all the time. 

[Qwertynm]

I am genuinley interested on the merit of such protective clear/uv filters. Do you often shoot in environments where your front lens could get damaged (e.g. WRC Rally)? Is it for peace of mind? What does an UV filter do for modern sensors? Is this not a remnant of the analog past? I thought modern lenses have special coatings to mitigate UV haze (or is it the sensor?). Is the lens hood not offering you enough protection against bumps against the lens? What if you break the filter and scratch the front element, are you worried about that at all? I've read that often times the front elements of lenses is much thougher than most filters so unless I'd be shooting a motocross or rally event, I'd not bother with protective filters. Am I missing out on not having "protective filters" (uv/clear) on my lenses? 

[Nimar]

7 hours ago, darylgo said:

My use of the two brands shows minimal if any difference.  Brass or aluminum?  I’d choose brass except that Leica makes the best aluminum mounts and I’ve had zero lock ups with them.  
 

This article may help, a bit old now but the take aways continue to be relevant:

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

Nice to know the Leica tax actually delivers, even if it's only 0.01 difference for 3-4x the price!

Edited February 1, 2023 by Nimar

[BrettWayne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

I am genuinley interested on the merit of such protective clear/uv filters. Do you often shoot in environments where your front lens could get damaged (e.g. WRC Rally)? Is it for peace of mind? What does an UV filter do for modern sensors? Is this not a remnant of the analog past? I thought modern lenses have special coatings to mitigate UV haze (or is it the sensor?). Is the lens hood not offering you enough protection against bumps against the lens? What if you break the filter and scratch the front element, are you worried about that at all? I've read that often times the front elements of lenses is much thougher than most filters so unless I'd be shooting a motocross or rally event, I'd not bother with protective filters. Am I missing out on not having "protective filters" (uv/clear) on my lenses? 

If you live in a pristine environment without pollution, salt air, pollen, dust etc etc then maybe a protective filter isn’t for you. For the rest of the world that gets around a filter is a great sacrificial optic that we can clean as quickly and often as needed without worrying about damaging the front element of our precious lenses. 

[Genoweffa]

b+w brass always

 

[Qwertynm]

vor einer Stunde schrieb BrettWayne:

a filter is a great sacrificial optic

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood. But are you saying that these protective filters act as consumables to protect the lens from pollen and dust? I get that cleaning off seaspray/sand can (in the worst case) scratch the front element. I don’t live near the sea so it’s never been an issue for me personally. If I understood correctly, do you purchase multiple filters over the lifespan of a lens? If so, wouldn’t replacing the front element be cheaper in case it eventually scratches? Sorry for derailling the thread with these questions. I’m just genuinely curious as I‘ve never scratched a lens in 15 tears of shooting with several lenses in different environments. 

[lofercan]

15 hours ago, L-user said:

Hi, I just acquired a Q2. Need some advice whether I should get the Leica E49 lens filter which is quite expensive or a compatible one like from B+W. Is there any reason why Leica’s is priced very high? Thank you.

On my Leica Q I use B+W F-Pro 007 XS-Clear MRC Nano - ND Filter. Highly recommended at a price between €40/50. 

https://www.amazon.es/gp/product/B004OR15K4/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood. But are you saying that these protective filters act as consumables to protect the lens from pollen and dust? I get that cleaning off seaspray/sand can (in the worst case) scratch the front element. I don’t live near the sea so it’s never been an issue for me personally. If I understood correctly, do you purchase multiple filters over the lifespan of a lens? If so, wouldn’t replacing the front element be cheaper in case it eventually scratches? Sorry for derailling the thread with these questions. I’m just genuinely curious as I‘ve never scratched a lens in 15 tears of shooting with several lenses in different environments. 

Have you any idea what a front element  replacement costs?   I could buy a bucket full of filters for the price.

 

4 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

I am genuinley interested on the merit of such protective clear/uv filters. Do you often shoot in environments where your front lens could get damaged (e.g. WRC Rally)? Is it for peace of mind? What does an UV filter do for modern sensors? Is this not a remnant of the analog past? I thought modern lenses have special coatings to mitigate UV haze (or is it the sensor?). Is the lens hood not offering you enough protection against bumps against the lens? What if you break the filter and scratch the front element, are you worried about that at all? I've read that often times the front elements of lenses is much thougher than most filters so unless I'd be shooting a motocross or rally event, I'd not bother with protective filters. Am I missing out on not having "protective filters" (uv/clear) on my lenses? 

Protective filters don't filter UV. As you note, there is no need.  UV filters can be used for protection, but are inferior for this purpose as they are designed to... filter UV

[lofercan]

Hace 15 horas, el usuario de L dijo:

Hola, acabo de adquirir un segundo trimestre. Necesito algún consejo sobre si debería comprar el filtro de lente Leica E49, que es bastante caro, o uno compatible como el de B+W. ¿Hay alguna razón por la que Leica tenga un precio muy alto? Gracias.

You can take advantage and introduce yourself to the forum. still welcome

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by lofercan

[BrettWayne]

2 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood. But are you saying that these protective filters act as consumables to protect the lens from pollen and dust? I get that cleaning off seaspray/sand can (in the worst case) scratch the front element. I don’t live near the sea so it’s never been an issue for me personally. If I understood correctly, do you purchase multiple filters over the lifespan of a lens? If so, wouldn’t replacing the front element be cheaper in case it eventually scratches? Sorry for derailling the thread with these questions. I’m just genuinely curious as I‘ve never scratched a lens in 15 tears of shooting with several lenses in different environments. 

Yeah - filters are consumables. For us mere mortals. If I had to live in a place and lifestyle where I didn’t need a filter I think I’d hang myself 😂. 

[Qwertynm]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Have you any idea what a front element  replacement costs?   I could buy a bucket full of filters for the price.

No, I don’t know exactly. I never had to do that because I never scratched a front element. I had a shift unit replaced on my Canon TS-E, which was 500 CHF + labor. So judging by that logic a front element can‘t be more expensive as it’s only a single element and not a lens group. Depending on the scratch it could probably even be polished? Labor would be the expensive part and I’d guess to replace a scratched front element would be cheaper than the Leica filter. Maybe that’s wishful thinking as I don’t have any idea about Leicas repair costs.

The person replying initially made it seem as if these filters were consumables you’d have to replace every other year (depending on where you live). Or by the time you scratched the filter. That’s how I understood it, because they scratch easily? Don‘t know, maybe I misunderstood. 
 

I understand there is a place and time to use such a filter but personally for non-hazardous environments I probably wouldn’t use one. You‘d have to have a deep cut in the front element to show up in your image. I don’t believe micro scratches would be worse that the reflections or abberations caused by clear filter. 

[Qwertynm]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb BrettWayne:

If I had to live in a place and lifestyle where I didn’t need a filter I think I’d hang myself 😂. 

Or maybe take better care of your equipment? 

[jaapv]

I had one replaced on my APO Telyt 180 4.0 -- Flat to reduce this cost they said , in 1999. Cost: 1950 Guilders AKA nearly 1000 Euro.   Aberrations are not measurable on a "protective" filter.

[Stephen.s1]

Does a protective filter for the Q interfere in any way with the stock lens shade?

 

[bobtodrick]

5 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood. But are you saying that these protective filters act as consumables to protect the lens from pollen and dust? I get that cleaning off seaspray/sand can (in the worst case) scratch the front element. I don’t live near the sea so it’s never been an issue for me personally. If I understood correctly, do you purchase multiple filters over the lifespan of a lens? If so, wouldn’t replacing the front element be cheaper in case it eventually scratches? Sorry for derailling the thread with these questions. I’m just genuinely curious as I‘ve never scratched a lens in 15 tears of shooting with several lenses in different environments. 

Filters are like any insurance…a waste of money til you have need of it.

Years ago I was in a hurry and stupidly bumped (like really bumped) my 35mm Asph Summicron against a door frame.  Crushed the filter ring, cracked the glass in the filter (this is the reason I always use brass filters…brass is meant to deform before your lens barrel).

Suffice it to say I was glad to replace a $75 filter instead of pay for what likely would have been an expensive repair.

[darylgo]

9 hours ago, BrettWayne said:

It might sound odd but if you research it Nikon filters are 2nd to none in my opinion, and second only to Leica according to the article posted above. The only problem is the most prevalent Nikon filters come in 52mm including the NC filter. If you’re on a Q2 Monochrom the real answer for me is Nikon 52mm via a screw-on hood made for Nikon 28mm via a 49mm-52mm step up ring. That gives me a choice of 10 grades of contrast filters for monochrome versus Leica’s basic 3 E49 B&W filters. Nikons are brass too. If you only need a clear protective filter for Color Q2 just go with the 49mm Leica filter though as it will likely just remain on all the time. 

+1 re: Nikon Filters are solid.  I would purchase these also if they were available in sizes that fit Leica.  Great idea for monochrome.  

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[darylgo]

Two reasons rarely stated to buy a filter, an expensive filter more so:  

1- We need to support the photo industry, the number of stores keeps diminishing, a filter is a source of great profit.  

2- A lens' front element is pristine years later with a filter, resale value increases more than the cost of the filter.