Use of UV filter, yes or no?

[Driesje]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently purchased a Leica UV filter to protect my precious Leica SL-24-90 zoom lens. A number of people told me that the UV filter will adversely affect the IQ of my SL2-s, so do not use it! Any thoughts on this? I cannot understand that Leica would sell a UV filter that has a negative impact on there IQ. 

[Mute-on]

Utter rubbish. Just use it.

If you’re concerned, do your own tests. It’s your lens, but a UV filter is much cheaper to replace than a lens element. 

[CptSlevin]

There is no IQ drop in using quality UV filter.
B+W, Kenko, etc are alright.

UV is a must have as it protects the lens.

[SrMi]

Adding additional glass always harms IQ (flare). However, the difference in IQ often may not be noticeable. I assume that you will use a UV filter as protection. It is worth having it on if it gives you peace of mind. I do not use UV filters on any of my lenses.

[Anbaric]

A Leica UV filter is so expensive you really need another filter to protect it.

[spydrxx]

Although this topic has been covered ad nauseum in previous posts (which for some reason people don't bother to search for), it is always helpful to remind people that there can be multiple reasons for using a UV filter. 

[Driesje]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for your advices. Yes the Leica UV filter is expensive but I wanted to have the Leica quality for my lens. I did notice however that keeping the filter clean is really a challenge. Smearing is not easy to get rid of. 

[Photoworks]

Any filter can cause IQ degradation. 

You may not see it often but it is there. I would just keep in mind that in some situations it is better to take it off.

Sunset, backlight, and harsh light. When you shoot into the sun you may see a double image of the light source

I take it off in the studio when shooting fashion because I have noticed a green flare on black garments when shooting on a white background.

P.S. the new Leica lenses have aquadura coding that makes them more protective and easy to clean.

If you using the Noctilux 0.95, Leica said not to put any filter on if possible. there will be loss in contast.

[Anbaric]

31 minutes ago, Driesje said:

Thanks for your advices. Yes the Leica UV filter is expensive but I wanted to have the Leica quality for my lens. I did notice however that keeping the filter clean is really a challenge. Smearing is not easy to get rid of. 

This test of UV filters with flare shots is probably the most informative I've seen. You can ignore the stuff about UV absorption if you are only interested in protection, but take a look at the flare shots and the light absorption plots:

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

Leica filters aren't included, but I would assume they source theirs from one of the high quality manufacturers like B+W, Hoya or Marumi. Even the best multicoated filters add a bit to the flare seen in challenging conditions with a bright light source in the frame (poor or uncoated filters add a lot), but I suspect you won't notice the difference otherwise. If you are shooting in these conditions, it can pay to remove the filter.

Another test that's often quoted is this one, which does include Leica (which they score highly), but I don't think it's very informative as they only tested at a single wavelength (the test above scans the whole visible range) and don't have real-world flare shots:

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

I'm a bit surprised the Leica filter is hard to clean, whoever makes it. The latest multicoating from major filter manufacturers (e.g. B+W MRC and MRC Nano, Hoya HD) is much easier to clean than older coatings (e.g. Hoya Pro-1 or SHMC).

Edited April 15, 2024 by Anbaric

[hepcat]

20 minutes ago, Driesje said:

Thanks for your advices. Yes the Leica UV filter is expensive but I wanted to have the Leica quality for my lens. I did notice however that keeping the filter clean is really a challenge. Smearing is not easy to get rid of. 

It's much easier to keep the filter clean than it is a front element.   And use a lens hood.  Always.  You will not notice any image degradation, despite what the purists say.  This talk of IQ being affected is like the old definition of "Mil Spec (Military Specifications:)"  "Measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk and cut with an axe."  If you're hand holding your camera, and you're outdoors, you're much more likely to be the cause of image degradation yourself.    If you're shooting in an optics lab on a bench with dampeners, and you're photographing test patterns, then it's possible you may notice IQ difference, but in the real world it makes not one whit of difference.   

I bought my Lumix 24-105 L mount lens for almost nothing because it has a 3/8" scratch on the front element because the former owner didn't believe in filters.  That scratch makes absolutely NO impact on IQ, and neither will a filter as long as you use a lens hood.  And I got a killer deal on that lens. 

[Ivar B]

I use the Leica UVAII 82mm on my 24-90. Excellent filter maybe made by Marumi in Japan, but I am certain that for example a B + W Master is the same quality and 1/3 of the cost or something.

A few days ago a 24-90 was offered for sale here at a low price. Why? A 2 cm stratch on the front element. This is why you use a filter in front. 

[HPFM]

Hmmm, anybody out here who thinks that the calculation and performance of a complex optics and the quality will not at all be affected by an additional element in front of the lens?? 

I just discussed the topic with a Leica-Instructor of a Workshop (Leica Academy) and for me it seems better to have a insurance which includes damages of my gear...

[Geoff C. Bassett]

B+W Master Nano Coated on all my Leica glass. No perceptible image quality loss and protects the lens. 

[Anbaric]

9 minutes ago, HPFM said:

Hmmm, anybody out here who thinks that the calculation and performance of a complex optics and the quality will not at all be affected by an additional element in front of the lens??

I'm sure there is a measurable difference, but is there a noticeable difference, outside high flare conditions? If you had a hundred images taken at moderate focal lengths, half with protective filters and half without, could you do better than chance at telling which was which? I don't think I could.

[hepcat]

30 minutes ago, HPFM said:

Hmmm, anybody out here who thinks that the calculation and performance of a complex optics and the quality will not at all be affected by an additional element in front of the lens?? 

I just discussed the topic with a Leica-Instructor of a Workshop (Leica Academy) and for me it seems better to have a insurance which includes damages of my gear...

Let's think about this logically for a moment.  No one uses a camera lens in a vacuum. So let's talk about all of the steps a photo has to make it to the final product and look at the potential for inducing problems at each one.   First, there's photographer-induced errors, focus, camera shake, and missed settings.  Then there's aberration caused by film and/or sensors.  Then there are atmospheric issues; haze, dust, smog, pollution, moisture that you have to photograph through.  Then, if you're using film, there's film processing, then selection of printing paper and printing, and print processing.  If you're using digital there's post-processing of RAW or .jpg compression, then resizing for the Web, or the necessary paper and printer selections for printing.  Yes, there are SO many steps in the process to the final product that as a practical matter,  the performance of a complex optic in the final image will NOT be affected by a filter in front of it, as long as the filter AND the optic are reasonably clean.  "Measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, and cut with an axe."

I've said repeatedly that since no one can tell what camera/lens/film/sensor combination took any particular photo, you'd be hard-pressed to tell me that you can tell by looking at the final product, whether an image was taken with a filter over the lens or not.

As I said in my post above, my Lumix S 24-105 has a one cm scratch in the coating and it makes not one whit of difference in my images.

This whole topic is blown out of proportion and is in "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" territory.

Edited April 15, 2024 by hepcat

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, Anbaric said:

A Leica UV filter is so expensive you really need another filter to protect it.

No problem stacking 50 filters or so...

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

Jeff

[Anbaric]

11 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

No problem stacking 50 filters or so...

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

Jeff

The stack of bad filters is a pretty good simulation of what I get from my Summar. That might just benefit from a bit of internal cleaning...

It does occur to me that the £290 filter Leica sells for the 24-90 costs more than several lenses I have put UV filters on.

[KenTanaka]

As others have noted, high-quality multi-coated UV filters will usually not degrade your images. I've used them for decades with no adverse affects.

With one exception; night work.  Filters can create ghost reflections between the filter and the lens outer element face when bright point source lights are in the frame.  I will often remove a filter for such work if environmental hazards (rain, snow, dust, spit, etc.) are low.

[Dr. G]

I don't usually use filters, but if I'm in a setting where I think I may be more at risk of damaging the lens (on the beach, etc.) I use a 67mm clear filter.  I have magnetic filter rings on all of my APO Summicron-SL lenses, and the filter is always in my bag.  It's very easy to just pop it on and off when needed.  FWIW, I always use a lens hood, though, so the front element still has some protection.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Dr. G]

5 minutes ago, KenTanaka said:

As others have noted, high-quality multi-coated UV filters will usually not degrade your images. I've used them for decades with no adverse affects.

With one exception; night work.  Filters can create ghost reflections between the filter and the lens outer element face when bright point source lights are in the frame.  I will often remove a filter for such work if environmental hazards (rain, snow, dust, spit, etc.) are low.

I've had this happen in a setting where there were a good number of vintage style lightbulbs around (the ones with three filaments).  I got ghosts of the filaments all across the frame.