Naked: Shooting without filters

[B_ruce]

I'm shooting an M6, and I just purchased two CV lenses: the 28/3.5 and the 35/2.5 C. When I asked the distributor about filters, he opined that filters are not needed on these lenses.

I've never used a lens that didn't have a UV or skylight filter in front of it. Without some filter, I'd fear dust/reside collecting on the lens itself. So my question: Do you shoot w/o filters? Did I get good advise?

 

[sam_m]

I never use protection filters like you're describing, but I do use filters - contrast filters for b&w and sometimes warming or polarising for colour, but only when needed. I think a decent lens hood should do a better job, they protect the lens from clumsy types like me, and reduce rather than induce flare.

 

[pvdhaar]

I'm not a fan of protective filters, though I must admit to using them on two of my lenses. One's a constant f2.8 zoom with big front element that's very exposed (notwithstanding the hood). I payed enough for that lens to cringe at the idea of scratching the lens or even getting finger prints on there..

The other is the 50/2 Hexanon, that I put a skylight on just to check what it actually does. Optically, it doesn't do anything good. But when I was shooting low from the ground during a rain, it did catch all the mud and sand that spattered up. I could just unscrew and rinse it! Now imagine doing that with a good lens!

 

[B_ruce]

I never use protection filters like you're describing, but I do use filters - contrast filters for b&w and sometimes warming or polarising for colour, but only when needed. I think a decent lens hood should do a better job, they protect the lens from clumsy types like me, and reduce rather than induce flare.

I see you are of the opinion that filters can induce flare -- have you seen that happen?

I've not tried contrast filters. And you are correct, I was thinking about protection-- to avoid having to touch the front element.

I did find a nice discussion of this topic in the Leica M forum under: "Using protective filters on RF lenses." Apparently this is a well discussed topic in general terms.

So I wonder, is there is anything about the CV 35/2.5 C and 28/3.5 that would make filters less necessary for them?

 

[Chuck Albertson]

Not unless it's raining.

 

[jmi]

I think I've seen scratched up uncoated filters induce flare, but I really like shooting into the sun (although I'll be the first to admit this was not done scientifically so it's hard to pin down the precise cause). I don't use protective filters because I do use hoods, and nearly all of them provide adequate protection. Main reasons for using hoods are so I can put the camera down hood first on a table (don't use camera bags any more), and because I am very clumsy - I have knocked the hoods against walls, doors, etc. many times, no damage, whereas a filter might shatter or at least dent if I did that to it.

On a possibly amusing related note, the lenses for my Contax G2 came with el cheapo uncoated UV filters screwed into them. That along with the fairly bargain price I got it at kinda makes me suspicious the previous owner never realised how stunningly good the 28 and 45 lenses actually are on that thing 🙂

So IMHO if you're going to screw filters into expensive lenses, at least buy the decent ones!

 

[jbf]

I have definately seen filters causing flare. Especially if the glass is not coated or is of a lower quality.

That is why for the most part I never use filters. If it is raining or snowing or I know something may get on the lens then I use a uv filter. Otherwise forget it.

I do use contrast filters for B&W on occasion however.

 

[pvdhaar]

I just dug up the pictures that I took while shooting with the filter on the Hexanon in the rain.

Sorry, it's a very quick 'n dirty shot of a shot. But it does show that the filter (it's a B+W, not something no-brand) still causes severe ghosting and robs the picture of its sharpness.. allthough the latter may be due to the water drops on the filter so far removed from the image forming front element..

Notice the double image of the tower at the right hand..

 

[payasam]

I've had filters -- yellow or red or polarising -- induce flare. Once I even got a strange splitting of the image, which could be blamed on nothing but the filter. No protective filters for me: but hoods always, to shield the front element from both extraneous light and accidental finger-prints.

 

[dcsang]

I'm shooting an M6, and I just purchased two CV lenses: the 28/3.5 and the 35/2.5 C. When I asked the distributor about filters, he opined that filters are not needed on these lenses.

I've never used a lens that didn't have a UV or skylight filter in front of it. Without some filter, I'd fear dust/reside collecting on the lens itself. So my question: Do you shoot w/o filters? Did I get good advise?

Not to toot my own horn but. . . . 😀
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13340

Cheers,
Dave

 

[StuartR]

Filters are good if you are shooting in a hazardous environment...dusty, salty sea spray etc. For physical protection, a metal screw in hood or some sort of locking hood will do a much better job. If something is small enough to poke through a lens hood and hard enough to damage the front element, it is unlikely that it will be stopped by filter glass. It will break the glass, then scratch the front element and the broken glass will give you more things to scratch the front element. Anyway, a filter is pretty unnecessary these days...the coatings are really hard and most coatings filter out UV light already.
I can see getting one if you are a compulsive lens cleaner...better to clean and clean a filter than the front element, but overall they are just an added expense with limited benefit. While in most situations a good filter will not degrade image quality, there certainly are situations where they can be problematic. The Leica and B+W IR filters are miserable in this sense...they create secondary reflections really badly in high contrast situations (like shooting at night). These are only coated on one side, so a modern multi-coated UV filter should fare much better.

Here is the misery of using the Leica IR filters at night:

Those blue UFO's are reflections off of the back of the filter from the lights at the top of the frame.

 

[StuartR]

Here again, are reflections from the Leica IR filters...if you look at the graffiti on the left, the blue spots are the reflections from the streetlights and the headlights. The reflections are always in the inverse position (like looking in a mirror).

 

[sienarot]

I'm also against the idea of using protective filters, unless in a hazardous environment (ie: salt, sand, etc...). Even then, I still don't like using them.

Many used lenses I purchased in the past have come with filters included. One time a lens I bought came with a filter that had so much bad ghosting and flare, a photo I took of my room looked like I had an extra window because of the double image!

 

[photobizzz]

I personally use Heliopan SH-PMC UV filters on my CV lenses, mainly because I got in the habit of putting them on my big expensive SLR lenses and as soon as I take the lens out of the box new, I place one on the lens and it keeps the dust and fingerprints off. I have not had a problem with flare but do my best to not shoot into the sun much.

 

[Dektol Dan]

A Filter is the Eveready Lens Cap

A Filter is the Eveready Lens Cap

I agree with sitemystic.

If you work in a pure controlled environment without confusion, crowds or children why use a filter? If you are in the real world and have to be ready, go for the filter. Hoods are great for a particular shot, otherwise they make everything too big and too conspicuous. Fumbling with a cap wastes time.

In my 40 years of shooting I usally always have a filter on my 35's but never for my larger format cameras. I have seen objectionable flare maybe 3 times in thousands of shots, but then I'm old and I practice Traditonal Rules and Safe Sex.

I'll add to sitemystic's tripod comment by saying, if your are using a tripod fly filterless, otherwise wear a camera condom.

 

[rogue_designer]

I typically don't use filters - aside from contrast filters for BW. I do have a few (good multicoated ones) that I keep for bad weather and rough conditions.

I really don't use them if I'm going to shoot at night. Point light sources (street lights, headlights, etc) are a sure test of flaring optics.

Less of an issue in the daylight - unless the sun is in your image.

 

[B_ruce]

great thread!

great thread!

All,

Thanks much for your thoughts, your photos, and the link!

In many cases, folks have presented good reasons for the approaches they have chosen. The photos shown make a strong case for the potential of having problems with protective filters. The link took me back to more of the history of the conversation. All this helps me put the topic into some perspective.

For the moment, the reality of my situation is that I'll be traveling with 1 heliopan filter for 3 lenses. I'm pretty sure it is single coated rather than multi, which I now see can be a factor in my choice. If I can manage to get the hoods off the new CV's (they need to come off to get the filter on --they are on as tightly as can be at the moment), then I'll always have a filter available if and when I face adverse conditions. If the hoods won't budge, then I'll treat the hoods & caps as protection as needed.

 

[peterm1]

I feel much happier using a UV filter on my expensive lenses - just for the added assurance it provides that my kit is a bit protected - both from bumps and scrapes and also from my obsessive compulsive urges to remove the slightest speck of dust. Far sooner scratch a $20 filter than a $1000 lens that may also be effectively irreplaceable if its an old one. (I kinda feel with old and desirable lenses like the DR summicron 50 that we owe it to posterity to do our bit to preserve them so there is added incdentive to keep them in good nick.) However I have sometimes worried about using UV filters on the grounds that especially in a contre joure situation there must be some image degradation even if only very minor. Never the less this does not stop me erring on the side of caution. I have been in the habit of buying filters second hand - sometimes because they are damn near unobtainable new. Having said all of that, what this tells me is that lenses can be marked up pretty bad in practice and not suffer much in performance as when I examine these filters closely it is common to find them with lots of scratches from over enthusiasitc polishing by previous owners.

 

[Bryce]

I'm a filter user.
For years I thought the flare issue was pure myth, but have actually seen it now. Pretty impressively, I wish I could find the picture.
The image in question, aimed almost squarely into the sun on a cloudless day has a ring of non-image centered around its middle. You can in fact read it, in reverse, says something like "...PER W..E .ELIAR...".
In fairness, there are about a hundred of those little iris images strewn around the frame too, like I was kind of hoping for.
Anyway, filters are a fact of life if you shoot B+W of anything outdoors and the problem is both rare and predictable.
I take off the filter when there are point light sources in or near the scene, use a hood when practical, and the rest of the time my lenses stay clean and unscratched.
Usually SLR's will warn you, by the way. If you see UFO's moving around the frame in the viewfinder, try taking off the filter and see if they go away. Sometimes they will, usually not.

 

[40oz]

Lenses don't collect dust and grit. They might get the occasiona speck which is easily removed by a puff of breth. I have a biger issue with putting my fingers on them in the course of handling, but big deal - I wipe it off. It's GLASS. A very hard substance. Even mid-50's Russian coatings are tough enough to tolerare a clean cotton t-shirt. How many people have scratches all over their bathroom mirror? I bet very few treat it like a precision instrument 🙂

Filters cause flare and ghosting. End of story. The rarity of such artifacts is directly related to the rarity of a light source in the frame.

I use coated lenses. Seems incomprehensible that one would then add a flare inducer to such a lens. Oh, sure, all your filters are coated, you never take a picture with light sources in the frame, you only shoot pictures on the third saturday in may, etc. etc. why bother carrying a camera?

Too many images ruined by filters for me, thank you very much.

Seriously, UV filters "protection" filters are easy money from suckers. If the cost of the lens was so dear, why waste money on a filter when you can exercise a tiny bit of caution when carrying a camera? They make "lens paper," "lens cloth," and "lens cleaner" for a reason. And I don't know if lens caps are unique to my region, but I've been using one now for quite a while, and find them very handy for keeping my lenses clean when not in use.

I'd use a UV filter at high altitude. That's it. I used an expensive coated one for a bit with color film, and found it had an obvious detrimental effect on the images. Sure, I could still take a good picture with it, but it was easy to see that I had more without it and the negative effects such as flare that came with.

JUst say no to filters except for special effects. Colored filters are great for some shots with B&W film. But for the majority of my shots, I can't see any filter helping. And some B&W films don't need a filter to capture things like clouds in the sky.

It really doesn't matter. You can shoot with them for 50 years, and I'll still say they are unnecessary and you'll still say I can't possibly get by without one.