Amateur question about leica lens

[Moonshine]

I'll be using an Elmarit 90 to take pictures of my kids on the beach and was wondering if i should buy a filter to put on the lens before i use it there. Many folks say not to use a filter but since it is the beach i was concerned about protecting the lens...any thoughts?
Thanks

 

[Dolce Moda]

My rule. Never shoot with a filter unless shooting outside. Outside always shoot with a filter. That goes double in a dusty environment like a beach... where I dislike taking a camera unless it's weather-sealed.

 

[jonoslack]

My rule . . never shoot with a filter. Why pay for all that lovely and expensive coating, carefully designed to go with the lens, then plonk somebody else's idea of coating in front.

The elmarit (if you have the slim one) has a good lens hood - pull it out and you're really unlikely to scratch the lens. I reckon I could probably buy a brand new 90 elmarit with the money I've saved on not buying UV filters over the years. The only time I've had a scratched front element is when a lens was scratched in service!

. . .. and you can replace front elements as well.

I also shoot a lot on beaches - I make quite a big attempt to keep the camera away from the sand - but I don't let it get in the way of the photography!

M9 24 'lux inches from the sand . . . no filter

 

[Brian S]

Use the filter. It will protect the lens, and will not degrade the image.

Under certain lighting situations, best to remove the filter. Shooting night scenes with bright lights, for example. Filters can cause reflections with Christmas lights for example.

Use a good filter, preferably multicoated. Leica, B&W, Schneider, Nikon all make good multicoated filters.

Having a front element replaced, or polished- is expensive.

Also use a lens hood: stray light hitting the front element will degrade the image.

This is with a UV/IR filter on a Jupiter-3, wide-open.



Some harsh lighting in the image.

 

[Chuck Jones]

I've got to go with Jono on this debate. If God (Leica) had intended the ultimate quality from their lens using a front filter, they would have provided one. What they did provide is a very sturdy hood, and a hardened front element. That's good enough for me.

 

[Brian S]

Leica makes filters. They do provide them. They have made them as long as they have made lenses. I use them on my Leica lenses, and others.

You can always take a filter off of a lens, and you can always have a lens repaired or replaced after it is damaged.

 

[glenerrolrd]

I use clear filters because (1) I think they have an insignificant impact on IQ and (2) near the ocean I want to keep my front element clean of salt ,sand etc . I can clean the filter quickly and without concern about scratching the front element .

So its more about my choice of how I keep the front element clean..I never use a lens cap and always keep the shade in place ..

Chuck and Jono are both correct that adding another element can impact lens performance and in some cases increase flare ...but I believe the impact is small ....and in my case being sure the front element is clean is definitely relevant .

 

[Moonshine]

Thx
What's the best Leica filter to use?

 

[Brian S]

Which is the best for color use and protection: depends. An Ultraviolet filter with have the least impact on color. A Skylight 1A will eliminate excessive blue from the image. For beach shots, I would use a Skylight 1A filter would cut the excessive blue from open sky, and add a slightly "warmer" cast to the image for film or the M9. Of course, for an M8- the UV/IR cut filter is important to prevent excessive IR from corrupting color.

 

[fotoism]

It depends on a few things.

First, you didn't mention what camera you use. If you are using M8 series, then the UV/IR cut filter will double as your color correction as well as you protection filter.

If you are using M9 or film M camera, then you may have to think about a protection filter as suggested by Brian.

While those who oppose the use of filters because of IQ degradation are not without merit, it depends on how you present your pictures. On the web? On your own computer screen ( or iPad and similar devices ), or in print? For showing on screen I believe you will be hard-pressed to see any filter degradation at all. Your screen will have already done quite a bit of degradation for you. For prints, once again if it is the usual 4x6 prints I wouldn't worry about any interference from a filter. If you print 20x30 or even larger, then you may have to think twice what filter, if at all, is to be used.

In any case, if you have to use a filter, use one that is made by reputable manufacturers and do not go for cheap ones. They are cheap for a reason.

 

[Moonshine]

Sorry I didn't mention the camera...will be a M9 with the Elmarit 90 E46. I'm just going to use it for protection for the lens from salt, sand etc..
Which would be the best filter to use in that case?
I read that the b+w ones are better than the Leica filters?

 

[fotoism]

Depends on how you define "better". There was a thread in 2007 discussing the differences between the two in detail in another forum, including a quote of the official B&W email: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica.../27330-b-w-486-filter-official-schneider.html

Mods: Please remove link if this is not appropriate.

 

[SYGTAFOTO]

For those who don't use filters because it degrades image quality, I wonder if they can tell from images whether or not they were taken with filters... It might be slightly more prone to flare, but I remember doing a quick test and concluded that if it flared with a filter, it also flared without the filter.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

For those who don't use filters because it degrades image quality, I wonder if they can tell from images whether or not they were taken with filters...

Take your favorite clear glass filter and put it in front of your eye and look through it. Can you see the difference with it in front of your eye? Of course you can. The same happens when you put it in front of a camera lens. Why pay four-digit dollar amounts for the best mass production glass you can buy only to feed it a degraded image... Do you want to photograph what you see through the glass or what you see without it?

 

[Chuck Jones]

For those who don't use filters because it degrades image quality, I wonder if they can tell from images whether or not they were taken with filters... It might be slightly more prone to flare, but I remember doing a quick test and concluded that if it flared with a filter, it also flared without the filter.

Not always. Remember, the interior of the lens is also painted to prevent reflections from the interior lens surfaces. Adding the additional lens element is adding something new that was not designed into consideration at the time of construction, so has no corrections for any aberrations from it. Including flair. I'll grant you that a lens that flares badly will also flair badly with a protective filter.

Where you will notice the difference though is when you start shooting directly into a strong light source. The sun being the most prominent, however shooting into a lit bulb on the front porch is just as bad. Lens flair is also a creative element, but as with all creative tools needs to be controlled to look right. Adding that extra front element in my experience adds too many reflection circles... ones that are not so pretty as those from the coated elements either. The color is off, the edges too sharp, and I hate those blobs of low contrast smear. Instant deletion in post. I find fewer of these ugly surprises since I gave up using filters a few years back - then rediscovered them when forced to use a UV/A on the M8. I loved my M8, but sure got very tired of being forced to use those filters. To me, my eyes see the difference in what I shoot. This is just my own judgement though for my work. Your own mileage may vary.

In the end, there is no question a protective front element does provide better overall protection for a lens. But like every insurance policy, it comes with an associated cost. For my work, I'm always around strong light sources so I can't use one and feel secure about flair. So I don't. Even shooting at the beach - were that large sun source and it's reflections are sure to be found.

 

[Moonshine]

i agree but i was just worried about scratching the lens with the salt sea air...
what filter would least interfere with image quality or alter image and just protect the lens while i'm shooting on the beach?

 

[Jan Brittenson]

All I have to do is look at that floodlight and be reminded why I don't put filters on my lenses unless they serve a specific purpose.

Here's a shot WITHOUT a filter - no massive flare nebulas around any of the lights, some of which spill onto the lens. (This is shot with the WATE, at 18mm.)

 

[Moonshine]

wow huge difference

 

[Chuck Jones]

Thanks for posting those examples Jan. The pictures are worth more than my thousand words <Grin>.

 

[Godfrey]

http://photofocus.com/2011/12/09/follow-up-to-my-post-on-using-a-uv-filter-to-protect-your-lens/