IR filter avilability heads up.

[MP Guy]

Ken Hansen from NY has a good supply of Heliopan IR cut filters in both 46 and 55 threads. He tells me these are the new ones labeld UV/Digital/Analog which does the same as the B+W filters. I hope we understood each other on the filter description. If so, they are a fraction of the price of the B+W's and are as good if not better. Ken has over 1300 different filters in stock and quite a few of these so called IR filters.

Ken is in NY and can be reached at 212-879-3263. Please keep in mind time differences.

Here is some info:

http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/heliopan.html

 

[edlaurpic]

On its face, the name of the Heliopan filter does not suggest that their purpose is to cut IR. We need to confirm that thse filters will work as well as the B+W, 486s (which seem to work great) before buying them instead.

If they do the same, good for Ken and for us.

 

[boilerdoc2]

Better get your orders in. Ken is running low but new ones in daily. He's shipping tomorrow several of these. Steve

 

[Magnus]

will the work with the" to be updated "firmware though ?

 

[stevenrk]

On its face, the name of the Heliopan filter does not suggest that their purpose is to cut IR. We need to confirm that thse filters will work as well as the B+W, 486s (which seem to work great) before buying them instead.

If they do the same, good for Ken and for us.

I own the Heliopan UV/IR filters. I use them on my CZ lenses that I use on my Canons. One is 55mm and used it with my M 28mm when I was testing the M8.

The Heliopan is NOT the same as a BW IR cut filter. In testing for the magenta issue, presence of the Heliopan made little difference and did not significantly reduce the magenta cast I found. The BW 486 is specifically for removing IR entirely -- which is why it is supposed to also give a much stronger red/magenta reflection at certain angles than the Heliopan does -- and for me the Heliopan is at the edge of what is an acceptable level of colored reflection.

 

[AGeoJO]

I own the Heliopan UV/IR filters. I use them on my CZ lenses that I use on my Canons. One is 55mm and used it with my M 28mm when I was testing the M8.

The Heliopan is NOT the same as a BW IR cut filter. In testing for the magenta issue, presence of the Heliopan made little difference and did not significantly reduce the magenta cast I found. The BW 486 is specifically for removing IR entirely -- which is why it is supposed to also give a much stronger red/magenta reflection at certain angles than the Heliopan does -- and for me the Heliopan is at the edge of what is an acceptable level of colored reflection.

Mine is on its way but I am definitely discouraged 🙁 when I read your response. Would you mind sending me the comparison shots between with and without, please? Or do you have a link to the comparsion images? Thanks!

 

[RogerDunham]

Mine is on its way but I am definitely discouraged 🙁 when I read your response. Would you mind sending me the comparison shots between with and without, please? Or do you have a link to the comparsion images? Thanks!

😀 This is disappointing as i thought I had found a workaround to the filter shortage. I have the BH box infront of me.They had the 55mm filter in stock. I thought this might be the case as the German Heliopan site shows the uv/IR spectrum blocked and it seemed to to be sort of IR lite . Couldn t find the B+W information to compare. I also use a Zeiss 28 2.0 on my Canon 5D ..just curious why have you found a need for the UV/IR filter on your zeiss lenses?

 

[MP Guy]

Well,

I have 5 filters and none of them cut the IR. Even the heliopan website says these are for cutting IR but no dice. I am sending back. Ken says he will be speaking with them on Monday for clarification.

 

[stevenrk]

😀 This is disappointing as i thought I had found a workaround to the filter shortage. I have the BH box infront of me.They had the 55mm filter in stock. I thought this might be the case as the German Heliopan site shows the uv/IR spectrum blocked and it seemed to to be sort of IR lite . Couldn t find the B+W information to compare. I also use a Zeiss 28 2.0 on my Canon 5D ..just curious why have you found a need for the UV/IR filter on your zeiss lenses?

It's not that the Heliopan does not work at all, it is that it does not work as fully as the 486. The attachments below are two crops of test shots with the M8 -- one with a 28mm Elmarit that had the Heliopan digital filter, and one with the 50mm Summilux that did not. C1 using the current M8 profile with no changes. Converted to sRGB and jpg, but no other work in PS. There is some difference in exposure, but still think these should give you a sense and a reference point. The Heliopan clearly reduces the IR, but the camera strap is black in real life, and as it seems -- from the tests I've seen in Sr's part 4 -- you would get with the 486.

The information I had on the reflective qualities of the 486 is from what I had read in several threads on the Leica forum from a member who has a history of getting the info right. As I understand it now, the 486 filter may not be much different than the Heliopan in the real world -- everyone is trying to compare one to the other without having both in front of them -- in which case it's not great but not a red beacon either. Hope that helps.

As to using the Heliopan on my CZs, since I use a mkII, SR's test -- which uses the 5D as a reference -- tells me that I have no need for it. Amazing how much information we are all starting to understand and never expected to underestand about IR.

 

[AGeoJO]

Let's wait what Leica comes up with before too long. May be they will give away 3-4 their own (B+W?) IR cut filters of various sizes for every M8 sold... yeah right.

 

[rvaubel]

It's not that the Heliopan does not work at all, it is that it does not work as fully as the 486.

The information I had on the reflective qualities of the 486 is from what I had read in several threads on the Leica forum from a member who has a history of getting the info right. As I understand it now, the 486 filter may not be much different than the Heliopan in the real world

Your right, the Heliopan works but it is only about 1/2 as strong as the B+W 486. But that may be a good thing if you are attacking the purple/black IR issue on two fronts, the color profiling solution as well as the filter fix. One possible advantage of having a weaker IR filter is it would presumably result in less cyan "vigneting" with wide angle lenses.

Rex

 

[MP Guy]

After receiveing the new IR cut filters from Ken, I can confidently say that they produce very deep blacks without any sign of magenta/purplae cast. These were expensive at 125.00 for 55mm threads but appear to be coated on both sidea. This is a great feature for reducing reflection which appears as ghost images. I have been reading lately that the B+W filters do not appear to be coated.

 

[Bob Parsons]

After receiveing the new IR cut filters from Ken, I can confidently say that they produce very deep blacks without any sign of magenta/purplae cast. These were expensive at 125.00 for 55mm threads but appear to be coated on both sidea. This is a great feature for reducing reflection which appears as ghost images. I have been reading lately that the B+W filters do not appear to be coated.

Jorge, as far as I can tell the six different B+W 486 filters I have are coated on both sides. One side appears to have the UV-IR cut coating and the other an anti-reflective coating. What we don't know is if the IR filter side coatings have an additional anti-reflective coating or if either or both sides are MRC coated. Mine are marked F-Pro, 486 UV IR Cut. Some people say theirs are maked MRC, mine are not. The Schneider catalog does not show the filters being available in MRC. However Sean Reid says the ones supplied to him by Leica for evaluation are marked MRC.

Bob.

 

[rvaubel]

Jorge, as far as I can tell the six different B+W 486 filters I have are coated on both sides. One side appears to have the UV-IR cut coating and the other an anti-reflective coating. What we don't know is if the IR filter side coatings have an additional anti-reflective coating or if either or both sides are MRC coated. Mine are marked F-Pro, 486 UV IR Cut. Some people say theirs are maked MRC, mine are not. The Schneider catalog does not show the filters being available in MRC. However Sean Reid says the ones supplied to him by Leica for evaluation are marked MRC.

Bob.

Bob

The Heliopan filters are definitly coated on both sides. Thier IR suppresion characteristics seem to be similar, at least the charts look the same. and Jorge reports that his results are very good, and he shows little or no reflection flair.

What we need is more confirmation of what Jorge has done. I have the filter but no M8. How many have bothe the M8 and the Heliopan filter? And I mean the right Heliopan coated filter i.e. the reflective IR cut filter, not the absorbtive one.

Rex

 

[rvaubel]

Jorge, as far as I can tell the six different B+W 486 filters I have are coated on both sides. One side appears to have the UV-IR cut coating and the other an anti-reflective coating. What we don't know is if the IR filter side coatings have an additional anti-reflective coating or if either or both sides are MRC coated. Mine are marked F-Pro, 486 UV IR Cut. Some people say theirs are maked MRC, mine are not. The Schneider catalog does not show the filters being available in MRC. However Sean Reid says the ones supplied to him by Leica for evaluation are marked MRC.

Bob.

Bob

I would assume that your filters are NOT coated. What would lead you to believe they are?

Rex

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I would assume that your filters are NOT coated. What would lead you to believe they are?

Yes, I agree with Bob. The B+W cut IR by interference, not by blocking. It does not have an "IR-blocking" coating. The glass itself is made in such a way that it interferes with IR wavelengths and effectively prevents these IR wavelengths from passing through.

To most people, what I said above, may be pedantry, and the effect may be the same, but the way the B+W lens works is by interference. Hence why it seems to "work better" when trying to filter out the IR wavelength.

 

[rvaubel]

Yes, I agree with Bob. The B+W cut IR by interference, not by blocking. It does not have an "IR-blocking" coating. The glass itself is made in such a way that it interferes with IR wavelengths and effectively prevents these IR wavelengths from passing through.

To most people, what I said above, may be pedantry, and the effect may be the same, but the way the B+W lens works is by interference. Hence why it seems to "work better" when trying to filter out the IR wavelength.

What I meant by not coated was not coated with an ant-reflection coating. I realize that the B+W 486 IR filters have a reflective IR coating but that does not necessarily mean that an ant-reflection coating in the visible spectrum has been added. The B+W 486 filters are apparently availiable both with or without and antireflective (MRC) coating. What others (including myself) have found is the AR coating (antireflective, MRC brand name) is necessary to supress flair artifacts induced by bare on axis light sources

The Heliopan filters have two different thin films applied to the front surface of the filter. The first coating consist of about 30 layers of micron thick substances that prevent the passage of IR by an interference process. The next layer on topo of that is a more or less conventional anti-reflection layer which affects the visible spectrum only.

In addition the Heliopan filters have an AR coating on the back side of the filter facing the lens. This is a very imporatant coating that controls the flair that everyone has been complaining about the last day or so. This is nothing new, but it looks like Leica may have supplied some B+W filters without this AR coating.

My suggestion is don't buy or accept filters that are not AR coated. That applies to all filters, not just the IR cut filters

Rex

 

[harmsr]

Rex,

The B+W filters that I have did not come from Leica. I have not heard of any from Leica yet except for the ones that Sean is expecting tomorrow. Mine were acquired by Tony Rose for me. We both thought that these were the only B+W 486 style filter available, as per their website.

Ray

 

[rvaubel]

Rex,

The B+W filters that I have did not come from Leica. I have not heard of any from Leica yet except for the ones that Sean is expecting tomorrow. Mine were acquired by Tony Rose for me. We both thought that these were the only B+W 486 style filter available, as per their website.

Ray

Well at least its good that Leica didn't supply uncoated IR filters. I was afraid they were trying to "cheap out" or worse yet, didn't know the difference!

I'm going to repeat my coated vs uncoated experiments that I did a couple of years ago to confirm the differences you and Jorge have been seeing. One of the reasons I want to do the experiment over again is I was trying to prove how horrible filters were for protective use. I proved that to myself pretty conclusively but I noted that coated filters were a lot better. But since I never intended to use filters anyway (unless I was in a sandstorm) I never really conclude just how much better coated filters were.

Oh, by the way, I found that good optical filters really didn't do any harm at all except for the bare lightbuld in your face night shooting scenerio were are talking about now. In other words, pretty extreme conditions. The ordinary "veiling glare" you get that reduces contrast only, was easy to correct in post processing. Really I couldn't tell the difference after correction. The reflection artifacts are a different matter.

Rex

 

[Bob Parsons]

Bob

I would assume that your filters are NOT coated. What would lead you to believe they are?

Rex

If I look at the reflection of the filter mount on the side that does not have the UV-IR interference filter the reflection is greenish color and of low intensity. It's a lot less than what you'd get from a plane glass surface.

However if I compare the reflection of either side of the 486 filter with that of a MRC UVa filter the reflection is much brighter. That's for light perpendicular to either surface. So it looks as if my 486 filters are coated but not as effectively as an MRC one. The Schneider catalog doesn't show the 486 as being available in MRC yet some people say theirs are marked MRC.

Bob.