Konica M-Hexanon Lens 28mm f/2.8's UV filter?

[Xinca]

<p>Hi, I just got a Konica M-Hexanon Lens 28mm f/2.8 and as usual I will add a b+w uv filter on it to forget the lens cap at all.<br>

As I read it is 46x0.75 size so which b+w uv I can use? I search in b&h there are a lot 46 but none claim it is 0.75. I am new in M world and in my old Canada world only number 46 matters.<br>

I won't touch leica fiter because it is too costly.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Alex, you just might try a 46mm filter. It just might work. If not, see if there are Konica filters on the used Market. </p>

<p>46.075 sounds like a really odd size. It might be meaningless. If I recall correctly, all the reviews said the filter size was 46mm. I never heard about any issues of needing weird filters for Konica RF lenses.</p>

[Xinca]

<p>I am sorry. I mean the filter size is <br>

<strong>Filter Size</strong><br>

Standard 46mm x 0.75mm.<br>

My question is does that 0.75 really matter? Or I can use any 46mm filter.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

 

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I think the 0.75mm refers to the thinner rim size to avoid vignetting on a wide angle lens. Some other reader may have the answer.</p>

[lilly_w]

<p>.75 refers to the thread pitch, which is a very standard pitch for filters of that size. Smaller filters (e.g. 24-35mm diameter filters) often have .5 pitch while larger filters (95-105mm) might have a pitch of 1.0.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>I have a Konica 90mm f/2.8 M Hexanon which is also 46mm. I have used regular B+W filters without a problem, but I did not look to see if it said, "x.75mm". Just give it a try, you should be fine. Why would they make a very odd filter size? </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Lilly is right, The 0.75 is the pitch of the screw and is a standard value. You will be alright with it.</p>

[Xinca]

<p>Thanks a lot! </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>A cap might be useful for those times when the camera has its lens aimed at the sun.</p>

[Xinca]

<p>Agree. But I hate to spend time to remove cap when I want take a shoot.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>You don't mind shooting through a dusty filter just because the filter cost a lot of money?</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>A ( uv ) filter is always better, not having to bother with the lens cap, and won't make a noticeable difference in quality, except for those who like to stare at renditions of brick walls.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Clearly you have not done a test. I have done several, which is why I <em>never</em> use a filter (except, on occasion, a polariser) and <em>always</em> use a hood.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Alex, in that case (especially with cloth shuttered Leicas) I usually leave the lens focus at very close range and an intermediate f stop, to avoid pinpointing the light source on the combustible cloth. </p>

[Xinca]

<p>Thanks a lot Arthur - I learned something today!</p>

<p>UV or no UV, it is always a question. </p>