what protection/UV filter do you use for Leica's M lenses?

[Tony Rowlett]

I'm in the "no filter for protection" school. I once was all fussy about the protection factor but realized that a lens hood during use, and a cap after use, is all that is needed. Why invite unnecessary veiling flare with another reflective surface?

[mpo]

<blockquote>

<p>Oh my - so you paid out twice for expensive UV filters? I have to say it all seems crazy to me. But the UV filter issue is akin to a religious issue whenever it is raised.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha ha ha!<br>

As my bio says, for me this is just a hobby (although a very serious one) so, I don't need rational, bullet-proof, justification for all these decisions (and I like that).<br>

Economic reasoning would advice to use my free time in consulting business, not wandering with a camera.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

 

<p ><strong>The following posts were copied from a thread discussing this very topic on the Nikon forum:</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 02, 2009; 11:16 a.m.</p>

 

<p>To see the effect of how UV filters degrade the lens' optical quality, I did a quick A/B test, but to exaggerate the effect, I stacked three Nikon L37C filters on my 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. I used that lens at 35mm to avoid any vignetting.<br>

The test images were both captured with the 17-35mm at 35mm, f8 on the D700 at ISO 200. The D700 was mounted on a sturdy Gitzo tripod and I used the 1-second delay to avoid any camera shake. Again, one with three L37C filters on and the other with no filter. The two images were captured about 70 seconds apart so that you can see the shadows moved a little.<br>

Can you tell any loss of sharpness?</p>

 

Large photo attachment: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00U/00UNo5-169425784.jpg"><br />(No Filter vs. 3 L37c Stacked Together -- 1086 x 700 photo)</a>

 

 

 

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 03, 2009; 10:38 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I wonder which image Douglas actually prefers; it could well be the version with three L37c stacked on the lens. I have been very careful not to point out which image is which.<br>

Yesterday I took additional images under different conditions, and I have to admit that I cannot tell any image degradation from stacking three UV filters on the lens. Of course, nobody with the right mind would do that in actual shooting situations, but I think it is safe to say adding one high-quality clear filter should be just fine. Occasionally if I need to shoot into a light source, as I probably do in 1% of my images, I wouldn't put a filter in front, nor would I use the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D in those situations as I demonstrated in this thread: <a rel="nofollow" href="../nikon-camera-forum/00UKN6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UKN6</a><br />In the other 99% of my images, I think I am going to use a protection filter a lot more often, and the 24mm AF-D is still a decent lens to use. However, if you mainly shoot at night into artifical lights as Kent Staubus does, your consideration should be quite different.<br>

My experience is a bit similar to Eric Friedemann's: when I was a teenager and using Minolta, once I was changing lenses with one lens in each hand; a friend accidentally bumped into my elbow and I dropped a 135mm/f2.8 lens on concrete. That lens had a "telescope" type sliding lens hood (similar to the one on the 300mm/f4 AF-S), so the hood was no help. The aluminum lens cap was smashed and so was the Hoya skylight filter under it. The filter ring was so badly damaged that I had to take the lens back to Minolta to get it off, but otherwise there was not even a scratch on the lens or on the front element.<br>

A lens hood is good for protecting your lens in some ways, but it doesn't help much with any salt spray, mist, blowing sand or children's fingers. A lens cap is helpful but you cannot shoot through it, and occasionally that 0.5 second it takes to remove the cap means you miss a shot. I would rather be as ready as I can all the time. I also wouldn't hesitate to clean a filter in the field with my shirt. Therefore, using a filter helps me keep everything clean and improve my images.<br>

If you still have doubts, try an A/B test yourself and see whether putting one high-quality clear filter will really degrade your images <strong>under your typical shooting conditions</strong>.<br>

The following image is to emphasis the tests I did. Normally don't shoot with three L37c filters.</p>

 

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00U/00UOM5-169641684.jpg" alt="" hspace="5" vspace="10" width="699" height="475" /> <br />Noramlly don't stack three filters

 

 

[christopher_a._junker1]

<p>Hood yes, UV mostly no, but always when shooting automobile races. Racing dust, dirt, rubber, oil, smoke seems to get into everything except behind the UV filter.</p>

[jason]

<p>i own a very old 50mm Summicron collapsible. It has extremely soft glass. My sample is pristine! i use filters to protect the front element and also the metal tube. Most old collapsibles are unusable due to cleaning. Gus Lazarri said it first. The man sees the results of our, all of us, walking, crashing into walls and doorways..Recently propelled a Nikon 105mm out of my backpack, while riding my bike. The lens is fine. The tube might be, once the filter is removed. A year or two ago, banged a 50mm Super-Takumar. The lens had no filter, nor will it ever now! OK Leica lenses are stronger material. The difference in sharpness, minimal. When shooting in strong artificial lights where risk of "ghost images" is guaranteed, (esp with my Leica lenses)*, removing the filter a good idea. The whole concept of Leica is a religion. i am a devotee.<br>

*No slur on Leica, simply my Pentax multi-coatings do not see flare etc.</p>

[frank_horn]

<p>I always use a filter over the lens for protection. An 81B (B+W) works for me for daylight scenes, much the same as tan sunglass lenses that I always wear. I particularly like Portra 800 and use both the 81B and neutral density 4x. Erwin might see degradation, but I can see any. Also, it gets my ISO meter reading down to 160. Handy in the bright Arizona sun. Take off the filters and you have the added sensitivity of ISO 800.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Chemical contamination of a lens is another good reason to use the UV filter, removing it only when taking pictures when highest required quality (but then you may also be shooting at optimum aperture and using a tripod) is needed. HCB didn't need highest quality, his art was more than enough. I find the multi coated filters of good manufacturers (i.e., those capable of delivering filters with two perfectly flat and aligned glass surfaces), like B+W Schneider, Rodenstock or Heliopan, to generally be as good as the lens itself and can be kept on the lens more or less permanently. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Many of you seem to think that modern optics are frailer than an old rope bridge over a canyon. You will clean a filter and then put it back on your lens, but you won't clean the lens itself. "Chemical contamination" will contaminate your filters, but you keep them on anyway. I don't understand you guys!</p>

<p>I love the idea that HCB did not need the highest quality because he had his art! That's what I say to my audience too - my pictures stink but at least I have my art.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Robin, think about it. If you are in a chemically aggresive area (lots of industrial sites) or at the seaside with blowing fine sand, or under unexpected rain, better to let the filter take the hit.</p>

<p>Robin, something else for your Audience to consider: In regard to my HCB comment, it should be taken not as a yes-no or black-white type of comment or any other such polarised interpretation, as you infer, but rather as a comment that what mattered more to Henri was the artistic/journalistic interpretation of his subjects. He admitted to guessing his exposures (which he nonetheless did quite reliably, given his experience with lighting), that is, no exposure metering, as you might do. In addition, he never printed his work in the darkroom, but left it to a darkroom technician to do, and thus to perfect his negative images at that later stage. He would likely not have been happy in the f64 group, or with one of many photographers of today and yesteryear for whom the technical perfection of the photograph predominates and is often what makes them salivate. Once he mastered his craft adequately, their seems to be little evidence that he wanted to go that sort of perfectionist route, and in fact he gave up photography and went into painted art before he died</p>

[mpo]

<p>Totally agree with Arthur's comment.<br>

Just a remark, HC-B gave up photography and went into painted art <strong><em>30 years </em></strong>before he died.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Arthur - you are preaching to the choir re HCB - most people guessed exposure then, as did my father and I did when I started as a kid- our photos should be much better technically than HCB's.</p>

<p>Still, I think one should treat many of HC-B's comments with a grain of salt. I personally think he affected an "aristocratic" disdain for his technique and photography itself (particularly later on when he became a painter). He considered himself an artist not a mere technician - not unlike the Stieglitz/Steichen disagreements, where Stieglitz fell out with him because of his embrace of commercial work "unbecoming" to the new art of photography.</p>

<p>Ansel certainly worshipped technique, but then it is difficult to compare their two types of photography. I can't see how Ansel could have taken HCB-type shots with his 8 x 10 or 5 x 7 camera.</p>

<p>We will have to agree to disagree on "pointless flat pieces of optical glass" (UV filters)!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Ansel used a Hasselblad, as well. HCB could have chosen to use a larger format Rolleifex (like his countryman of the time, Edouard Boubat, another superb street photographer) or Technica or another 35mm RF camera than the Barnack or M Leica. Differences of artistic or photographic approaches go far beyond specific equipment.</p>

<p>You are mentioning UV filters, but other "pointless flat pieces of optical glass" are used to do things other than block UV radiation and also protect the front lens element, including polarizing filters, warming or cooling filters (colour balance, depending upon the altitude of your photographic work,etc.), IR filters, colour filters (for B&W, often a light yellow or medium yellow filter is used frequently), colour enhancing filters (deodynium type, others) and others.</p>

<p>The functions of these apparently useless flat glass objects are not only to protect the lens but to enhance the quality of the radiation that arrives at the film plane or sensor.</p>

<p>Win-win.</p>

<p> </p>