kshapero
South Florida Man
I like always having a UV filter on my lenses. Probably more for protection than anything else. Does putting a Multi-coated filter on an older single coated lens make any sense? Or just a cheapo will do? I have usually used B+W MC UV filters on all my lenses.
ampguy
Veteran
Yes it makes a difference
Yes it makes a difference
Older lenses, pre '50s or so have little UV blockage, this isn't necessarily bad, but depending on your film, sensor, bw or color, and preferences, you will get differences in images, b/w or color.
Not sure about a plain UV filter, or MRC type UV filter, to me they all vary with regards to wavelengths filtered.
It's not a binary yes/no to UV filtration with regards to lens specs.
Yes it makes a difference
Older lenses, pre '50s or so have little UV blockage, this isn't necessarily bad, but depending on your film, sensor, bw or color, and preferences, you will get differences in images, b/w or color.
Not sure about a plain UV filter, or MRC type UV filter, to me they all vary with regards to wavelengths filtered.
It's not a binary yes/no to UV filtration with regards to lens specs.
I like always having a UV filter on my lenses. Probably more for protection than anything else. Does putting a Multi-coated filter on an older single coated lens make any sense? Or just a cheapo will do? I have usually used B+W MC UV filters on all my lenses.
kshapero
South Florida Man
shucks, I was expecting an answer like that.
It is especially important to use a multi-coated filter on an uncoated lens. The multi-coated flat surface is less likely to reflect the higher amounts of light coming off of the uncoated surfaces.
I make this stuff up as I type.
I make this stuff up as I type.
kshapero
South Florida Man
D-mn that sounded good. You are probably right.
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
Think 'flare' might be the issue.
I tend to use a filter as a lens protector rather than anything else. Camera lenses tend to be recessed a bit so have some protection from side lighting. Strikes me that a filter on the front is going to be more prone to the same side light.
However why don't you put the camera on a tripod and take pairs of shots one with filter and one without. I would suspect little or no difference with side light and back lighting. Into the light - anyone's guess.
Having done all the hard work for the rest of us you can then let us know your results - slight tongue in cheek but you get the gist ...
Have fun whatever,
Jesse
I tend to use a filter as a lens protector rather than anything else. Camera lenses tend to be recessed a bit so have some protection from side lighting. Strikes me that a filter on the front is going to be more prone to the same side light.
However why don't you put the camera on a tripod and take pairs of shots one with filter and one without. I would suspect little or no difference with side light and back lighting. Into the light - anyone's guess.
Having done all the hard work for the rest of us you can then let us know your results - slight tongue in cheek but you get the gist ...
Have fun whatever,
Jesse
gb hill
Veteran
So am I correct in saying that if you don't want that leica glow use a multi-coated filter to snuff it out!
No- not at all. I use a multi-coated filter on my uncoated lenses. The uncoated lenses reflect more in the outgoing direction than a newer lens. The uncoated optics will produce the "glow", ie have lower contrast and have veiling flare. The flat surface of a filter will "reflect the reflections" right back onto the image. So if you use a filter with an uncoated lens- best to use one that does not cause more reflections. It will best preserve the image as formed by the lens.
Uncoated 5cm F1.5 Sonnar with B&W UV/IR filter, on the M8.
An uncoated filter would likely cause a secondary image of the snow and "saturated" portion of the road.
Uncoated 5cm F1.5 Sonnar with B&W UV/IR filter, on the M8.
An uncoated filter would likely cause a secondary image of the snow and "saturated" portion of the road.
Does anyone want to hear my theory on the use of uncoated optics on the M8 for noise reduction at high-ISO...
t.s.k.
Hooked on philm
Easy- uncoated lenses have veiling flare that tends to fill in shadows. Noise in high-ISO images is most prevalent in the shadows as few photons hit those pixels. It's almost like pre-flashing film to fill in (place a bias) the shadow areas before taking the image. The lower contrast and veiling flare "smears-out" the existing light into the shadows, more photons into the shadows, less noise.
Everybody will be running to Summars and Sonnars for the M8 now that the secret is out.
Everybody will be running to Summars and Sonnars for the M8 now that the secret is out.
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
Another way is to put tape over the red dot. That way even the camera doesn't know it's a Leica and automatically removes the glow.
Steve M.
Veteran
Yes, of course it makes sense. You should always use high quality, multi coated filters if you're going to use a filter. But it won't turn your single coated lens into a multi coated one To tell you the truth, other than using a yellow filter for B&W or a UV filter for haze, I would rather go w/o one. I am convinced they contribute to flare, even if minimally. It puts another piece of glass and an air space into the equation.
The main thing you can do to control flare is use a good hood.
To tell you the truth, other than using a yellow filter for B&W or a UV filter for haze, I would rather go w/o one. I am convinced they contribute to flare, even if minimally. It puts another piece of glass and an air space into the equation.The main thing you can do to control flare is use a good hood.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
You shouldn't have said that, now we will never know the real truth. Very subtle; gb hill.
ampguy
Veteran
Interesting Brian
Interesting Brian
Makes some sense. I've noticed my 35 lux at 1.4 in the dark does very well wrt noise, and this is where there is the most veiling flare on this lens.
I think the next big thing with rangefinders is moving away form 50s to 28s and 75s. Sell your 50s while they are still worth something!!
Interesting Brian
Makes some sense. I've noticed my 35 lux at 1.4 in the dark does very well wrt noise, and this is where there is the most veiling flare on this lens.
I think the next big thing with rangefinders is moving away form 50s to 28s and 75s. Sell your 50s while they are still worth something!!
oftheherd
Veteran
Makes sense when you think about it.
oftheherd
Veteran
Yes, of course it makes sense. You should always use high quality, multi coated filters if you're going to use a filter. But it won't turn your single coated lens into a multi coated one
The main thing you can do to control flare is use a good hood.
Even single coated filters will reduce flare somewhat. That's what coating is all about. And all filters have a use. I keep UV on many of my lenses for protection. However, all colored lenses in b/w have a use, and color correction lenses in color as well. Other than UV if you like, they shouldn't be used all the time, but they shouldn't be ignored all the time either. Use them when needed, just as you would any other photographic tool.
gb hill
Veteran
Well it seemed right in my mind but I understand your point!No- not at all. I use a multi-coated filter on my uncoated lenses. The uncoated lenses reflect more in the outgoing direction than a newer lens. The uncoated optics will produce the "glow", ie have lower contrast and have veiling flare. The flat surface of a filter will "reflect the reflections" right back onto the image. So if you use a filter with an uncoated lens- best to use one that does not cause more reflections. It will best preserve the image as formed by the lens.
Uncoated 5cm F1.5 Sonnar with B&W UV/IR filter, on the M8.
An uncoated filter would likely cause a secondary image of the snow and "saturated" portion of the road.