filters; yes, or no?

mojobebop said:
to filter or not?
a sophomoric question perhaps.
i have put a heliopan uv on my lens
today, mainly for protection.

what i am wondering about is whether or not
this 'extra' glass will only serve to detract from
image quality.
Click to expand...

Like others said. It's a religous question :)

On the good side, it's very easy to test for yourself and decide by yourself what you prefer. Just shoot the same scene at night with and without.

Cheers,

Roland.

PS: I myself use filters, always. Too much stuff in the air, close to the ocean where I live. Also once scratched a front element by putting a hood on blindly in the dark.
 
I use filters on all my lenses for protection. Maybe filter degrades the image but I can't see it.

I found that shooting on the street, in a dusty environment, filter helps a lot in protecting and keeping the front element clean. After shooting on the street my filter always has dusts on it.

And in clean or non dusty environment .... if there are little kids or toddlers around, the filter always has greasy fingerprints ... there's something about lens that attracts little kids to touch it, espescially when their fingers are dirty or greasy :D

Bob
 
A lot of people have approached this question, but the bottom line so far seems to be there is no real evidence of the image being degraded by filters according to folks working at many of the magazines.

That said, some filters are better made than others, and if you have a good relationship with your local dealer, they have boxes of used UV filters which they take off trade ins, usually in the drawer with the straps, so you may get good filters for basically nothing.

Second, I have seen some pretty messed up filters from hard knocks that saved elements and outer rings, and those people seem to have felt it had been a good idea at that time.

I banged a few lens hoods pretty hard, they absorb a lot of abuse as well.

My lady friend took off the filter on her zoom as there was some condensation, at which time her then boyfriend dropped the lens on a piece of granite, the 2 inch furrow ended up costing $100 plus shipping for the new outer element.

If you feel you have need, you have options.

Also, an Inland Marine Policy on good lenses is another option.


Regards, John
 
Who was it who said, "Keep the lens clean, don't keep cleaning the lens."?

In the area where I live there is so much crappy gunk in the air it would be foolish not to use a UV filter. That may not be true everywhere.
 
I tend to use protective filters. I guess I'm a little paranoid. But, I'll second what david elliott said, and also revise and extend my remarks.

I bought the best multi-coated (on both sides) Hoya filter for my Canon 0.95 lens. After all, what good is the expensive glass if you degrade it with a cheap filter. Besides, it's prone to flare.

OTOH, I have a Summarit 50mm 1.5, and it takes a weird filter size. I think it's 40 or 40.5 mm. If I find a cheap UV filter, I'll buy it, but I haven't yet. Just my rupees worth.
 
When I least expect it Ive bumped my Leica into the door, it just happens. I've also bumped my $4000 Rolex into the door, it just happens.

I like my lens clean. The key in my mind is to get good filters such as Heliopan or B+W. Dont know for sure, but read Leica filters are plain Shott glass (not multicoated).

My Leica and my lenses are fine tools. You wont find my cameras bumping against each other.
 
Last edited:
I think that the Summarit would be the lens that NEEDS the expensive multi-coated filter the most. It's not the sharpest of lenses to begin with and it tends to flare. Also, those early Leitz coated lenses had a soft easily scratched coating.
 
bmattock said:
The only thing light can pass through which does not affect it is a vacuum.

Of course the filters degrade the image; they must. The question is how much.
Click to expand...

If we are going to be this technical, light rays are not safe from alteration even in the vacuum of outer space. The gravitational effects of bodies in space warp the shape of the space those bodies are in, with consequent bending of the light rays passing through that space.
 
A B+W UV filter on my canon 50mm 1.2L badly affects image quality - it tends to make it "glow" wide open more, and also somehow makes it's critical focussing ability worse. I've never damaged a lens, and don't usually use them in bad conditions.

Bright points of lights at night ruin pictures with filters as well.

I don't use them.
 
I spend thousands of dollars on my lenses that have had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on them during their R&D by their manufacturer to get optical formulas just perfect. I also take photos for the PHOTO not for the gear. I don't care if my gear shows signs of use, if I have some photos to use from it I am happy.

Putting another little piece of glass over my precise optical instrument just adds to any optical problems it may already have.
 
Yes

Yes

Leitz or B+W UV's on my three M lenses. All M lenses are E39 so I have a series of B+W color filters that can be used on all three - yellow, green, orange, and #25 & #29 red.

I also use a Leitz swing-out polarizer.

I use a Leitz yellow #1 on my screw-mount Summitar and am in the market for a mint SL (skylight) filter.
 
fdigital said:
I spend thousands of dollars on my lenses that have had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on them during their R&D by their manufacturer to get optical formulas just perfect. I also take photos for the PHOTO not for the gear. I don't care if my gear shows signs of use, if I have some photos to use from it I am happy.

Putting another little piece of glass over my precise optical instrument just adds to any optical problems it may already have.
Click to expand...

This isn't logical to me: they also spend R&D money to put "filter" threads on the end of their lenses and additional R&D money to design their own "filters". (Speaking about Leitz of course) :p
 
raydm6 said:
This isn't logical to me: they also spend R&D money to put "filter" threads on the end of their lenses and additional R&D money to design their own "filters". (Speaking about Leitz of course) :p
Click to expand...

Might be - However, it seems to me that sometimes they spend it successfully, but sometimes they end up with anachronistic & not-very-practical solutions, see the Tri-Elmar 16-etc-etc., or the new 1.4 21/24, or all the Series lenses which all require some sort of contraptions to be able to use filters with them :D Other manufacturers, except for ultra teles or fisheyes, come up with better (read, more standardized) solution for what I only can assume to be less R&D money ;) so maybe Leica doesn't want us to use filters in the end, and this is why it makes it difficult for us to use them, or maybe they just want to sell us their own...
 
Agreed. And I'm sure there's some degradation from introducing yet another glass-air surface but for me, it's not too big an issue.

Speaking of standardizing, there is an E39 adapter for the Summitar as well which would allow me to use my filters but I'm not in a hurry to get one.
 
The original chrome Leitz E39's are what I've been picking up. Have the UV, Light Yellow, Medium Yellow, Orange, Green, and Red. Good to have a choice. I've never seen any visible degrading of any of my images from use of the filters, that I can detect. So, good enough for my uses.
 
Last edited:
Bugger all difference to resolution, though as Fred says, possible difference in e.g. landscapes.

Leitz Party Line: "Why do you think we make lens caps?"

Real world testing (mine, and Ctein who is a better experimentalist than I): bugger all difference with lenses of focal lengths suitable for Leicas.

Difference between expensive and cheap filters (same sources): bugger all.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom