Use of UV filter, yes or no?

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, hepcat said:

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.

so much misinformation.

The Lumix 24-105 is the lowest resolving L-mount zoom lens and with the least micro-contrast. no wonder you don't see much difference.

Edited April 15, 2024 by Photoworks

[jaapv]

4 hours 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 is not specifically "Leica quality". It is a rebrand using Schott glass and not made by Leica; quite OK but not of exceptional quality and overpriced. Leica sells them because of demand and the price can be explained by the manufacturing costs of small series of the rings. - and a little extra profit for Leica of course.
The best quality are dedicated protective filters by for instance B&W or Heliopan. Nano coating, so totally easy to keep clean, thinner "shatter-proof" glass (not really, but stronger than standard optical glass) thus even less aberrations. Which is logical, as they are designed to protect with minimal optical impact, as opposed to UV filters, that are designed to err... filter UV light.

Sorry if someone else posted this as well but I did not wish to wade through the standard morass that this question usually generates. 

Oh - and "the impact on image quality" argument is part of the Princess on the Pea Syndrome (PPS) for real photographs, apart from the flare in rare adverse lighting argument, which Nano-coating (which Leica does not have) will greatly reduce.

[Anbaric]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The best quality are dedicated protective filters by for instance B&W or Heliopan. Nano coating, so totally easy to keep clean, thinner shatter-proof (not really, but stronger than standard optical glass) thus less aberrations. Which is logical, as they are designed to protect with minimal optical impact, as opposed to UV filters, that are designed to err... filter UV light.

I think the protection and UV filters in the same product range (e.g. B+W XS-Pro or the new Master series) have the same thickness and coating (e.g. MRC Nano). It's just that the transmission curves are different. A B+W 010 (UV) cuts transmission in the UV range more completely and at longer wavelengths than the equivalent 007 (protection). For digital, I doubt it matters which you get. But if you (e.g.) like shooting film at altitude (a bit hard with an SL lens!) a UV may make more sense.

[jaapv]

Not since about 1950 , when Absorban replaced Canada Balsam in Leica lenses, making the lenses themselves UV-opaque (except the Elmarit 90 1st version which used UV blocking coatings as it had no kitted lens elements).
Under 3000 meter a UV filter adds nothing. However, a sensor camera as such is UV sensitive. 
In the past I did take UV photographs using an M8 with a Summarit 1.5/5cm lens and a B&W UV pass filter. Works well.

BTW Heliopan specifies "specially cut raw glass". Whatever that may be...

[Dr. G]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Not since about 1950 , when Absorban replaced Canada Balsam in Leica lenses, making the lenses themselves UV-opaque (except the Elmarit 90 1st version which used UV blocking coatings as it had no kitted lens elements).
Under 3000 meter a UV filter adds nothing. However, a sensor camera as such is UV sensitive. 
In the past I did take UV photographs using an M8 with a Summarit 1.5/5cm lens and a B&W UV pass filter. Works well.

So do the APO SL lenses have any kind of UV filtration in their design or is the APO designation and effectiveness only related to the visible light spectrum?  

[jaapv]

I am convinced they have but you need to ask Leica to be sure. The APO designation relates to three (with Leica four) points on the visible spectrum.

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The sensor will have some filtration over it.

There are also some harder — ceramic — filters, which I find great, although if they are harder than your lens, it my transmit a grater shock to your lens on impact, rather than absorbing it and breaking (as my only Leica filter did, the only time I have ever dropped a lens). 

[jaapv]

2 minutes ago, jrp said:

The sensor will have some filtration over it.

There are also some harder — ceramic — filters, which I find great, although if they are harder than your lens, it my transmit a grater shock to your lens on impact, rather than absorbing it and breaking (as my only Leica filter did, the only time I have ever dropped a lens). 

Mostly IR. UV- less so.

[earleygallery]

I always find these threads quite amusing, with people claiming that a piece of cheap glass in front of a Leica lens will ruin the quality.

Back in the pre digital days nobody would question the use of filters for B&W work or colour correction, or even for effects. They were part of the overall process of photography. Nobody ever lost sleep over 'loss of quality' from using a filter.

Ultimately it's a personal choice but I prefer to have a filter to protect a lens - the OP even mentioned having trouble cleaning marks off his filter, so even more reason for them using one!

 

[SJCoates]

Going by my own tests done on filters, there is no difference at all.

When I got my SL last month, I was able to do my own test with my 105-280/4.2 R lens, as I have a B&O UV filter and wanted to find out exactly what difference there would be with or without the filter. So I set up a perfectly controlled test on a target with everything as as contolled as possible - so ISO 50, tripod, self timer (so no camera shake from pressing the shutter release), lens stopped down to f/8, its best aperture, and comparing both photos with and without the filter, they were identical. I know my process is correct, as I tested all my lenses at different apertures and could see that the lenses improve when stopped down - and we are talking about R lenses including the 100/2.8 apo and 28/2.8 version 2, two lenses from the R range that are known for exceptional performance.

[SJCoates]

Interestingly, I took my test further to see the effect of using Cokin filters would have; I do a lot of landscape photos, so the sky features quite a bit in my photos, so having grads and a polariser are essential bits of gear. The Cokin filters I have are the resin type, so surely there would be some drop in quality... However I couldn't see any. I was quite surprised really, but relieved as it meant that I could no longer justify upgrading my filter outfit to replacing them all with glass filters, which would add quite a hefty financial outlay - not helpful considering I am saving up for a 19mm f/2.8!

Edited April 15, 2024 by SJCoates

[IkarusJohn]

I use filters a lot - red, orange and yellow for my Monochrom, polarising and a set of ND filters, all Heliopan, Rodenstock, Lee Seven5 and Formatt Hitech.  I see no degradation in image quality in these filters at all.  I do have one Leica UVa filter for my 50 Summilux ASPH, which I do leave on - not sure why.

That said, I don’t use UV filters for lens protection.  I used to do that, and after I dropped a Nikkor lens, the thread on the front of the lens was crushed.  So, I’m not convinced about lens protection - haven’t scratched a front element in over 50 years of photography in some pretty challenging places around the world.  I do use hoods for flare and lens protection.  Interestingly, when I took my Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 lens in for sale, it turned out the lens was impact damaged - I hadn’t noticed, but the hood had taken a knock, breaking the plastic where it mounted the lens, and the lens ring itself was also damaged.

The best protection for your camera gear is to take care of it!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I take it you've all tested in all different kinds of light with different atmospheric conditions.....

Unfortunately, the occasional *what's this weird flare on my lens* topics would disagree with you.

1. Filters CAN degrade image quality but usually they don't. The trick is that when you see something weird the first thing you do is take off the filter to see if that's the cause.

2. Lenses and sensors are *somewhat* filtered for UV. Unless you're at extreme altitude your UV filter is just a protection filter.

3. Hoods are generally better for *protection* as they actually stop impacts reaching the glass. A breaking filter can easily scratch the front element. Also hoods help reduce they flare that filters can exaggerate.

4. Generally, if you use lens caps then you don't need *protection filters*. If you leave them at home or have them off for hours at a time, then filters become useful. But there's little point of having another two optical surfaces if your lens has a cap on it when it's over your shoulder.

5. If you do use a protection filter it needs to be immaculate or it does more harm than good.

6. Modern lenses have better coatings and are more difficult to damage than older ones. Some old lenses scratch just looking at them. Not so much modern front elements.

I personally use filters for filtering. ND's and polarisers, mostly. I have one lens with a permanent filter and that's my MATE. The front element can't be replaced or repaired anymore and since it's worth AUD8K used I don't need it damaged. It also has a recessed front element. Sometimes when using a single camera and lens I'll leave the lens cap at home and have a filter on so I'm ready to shoot, with the camera over my shoulder. Other than that, I use lens caps or hoods for protection until the environment demands them.

All of my SL lenses have magnetic filter rings on them. I do have a high-quality clear magnetic filter that can go on in dusty, polluted, wet, sandy or really windy environments for protection. Mostly though I'd prefer just to have a hood or a cap. And the magnetic caps are trivial to remove and store. My policy is to put a filter on when I need it and off when I don't. 

Gordon

Edited April 15, 2024 by FlashGordonPhotography

[robb]

I have never used UV filters.  I only use heliopan circular polarizers or b+w nd filters for video needs.  I basically use these for a reason.  Otherwise, I’ll opt for just the lens itself.

Robb

[Antonio Russell]

I do not use a UV filter with digital (did with B&W film). I don't think they are really necessary with modern digital sensors.

Also, and more importantly, lenses look much better without a filter on. 

[Viv]

On 4/15/2024 at 12:06 PM, Driesje said:

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. 

Do not listen to those who spout rubbish. Any UV filter degradation would be imperceptible.

[Stuart Richardson]

I stopped using most of my UV filters (not that I had them for everything) when I started doing a lot of night photography for a book I was doing. I got lots and lots of secondary reflections. Using a filter is always a trade-off. You are introducing an extra air glass surface, essentially adjusting the formula of the lens. Since it is a planar element it is not adding any optical changes to the lens, but it does reduce transmission and increase the propensity for flare. In the large majority of cases these changes are imperceptible. But in certain circumstances, like when there is a lot of contrast between your highlights and shadows, the reflections can cause some havoc. In the case of UV filters which do not do all that much optically in modern lenses, it is up to the photographer to decide whether their usage is better served by a bit of extra protection, or whether they want as little in the way of the lens as possible. Personally I have found good lens hoods and caps when not in active use do more to protect the lens than a filter does, barring specific scenarios like sea spray or blowing sand. Ultimately, if it makes you feel better, use it, but if you notice secondary reflections try taking it off and see if it improves it.

Filters can degrade image quality, though they often don't, and they do provide a lot of easy profit for camera and filter makers. They can both help and hurt, protect the lens and also increase potential damage (if the shards of the broken filter scratch the lens). All of those outcomes are real and possible. Choose your poison.

[Jonathan Levin]

If I’m working in studio I may not use a filter. Outside walking around, with filter. I’ve been in to many situations where something like dust, dirt, rain, (your polutant here) has enveloped my gear. I have had an easier time selling/trading lenses that have had a filter attached. Spotless front element. Filter not so much. 

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, Antonio Russell said:

I do not use a UV filter with digital (did with B&W film). I don't think they are really necessary with modern digital sensors.

Also, and more importantly, lenses look much better without a filter on. 

Sensors are UV sensitive and suitable for UV photography. It is the lenses that are UV opaque. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Sensors are UV sensitive and suitable for UV photography. It is the lenses that are UV opaque. 

Are you sure? I thought the cover glass was generally UV opaque and it’s IR that varies depending on whether the sensor has a strong IR cut component to it or not. Or have I mixed that up?

Gordon