The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Amateur question about leica lens
- Thread starter Moonshine
- Start date
jonoslack
Active member
I've never done a real test . . . but I can say categorically that the money I've saved by not buying filters is much much greater then the money I've spent having front elements replaced because they were scratched.
. . . . and I'd rather take the chance of spending money on a front element than reduce the quality of the image from a lens that I've spent lots of money on.
Just to really make myself seem eccentric, I rarely use lens hoods either - except for built in ones - because the light source is unpredictable, and if shading is needed to prevent flare a carefully placed hand is usually more effective.
Meh.... money spent on filters is a moot point. When you sell, you pretty much get back what you put into them. Personally, I would rather replace a filter than the front element. Cost is one thing, but having to wait for Leica to do the work? Nah.. not worth it.
In the end, it's personal preference.
Godfrey
Well-known member
When I sold camera equipment, in the dim recesses of time, selling the blinkered public on the value of using a filter to protect their valuable lenses was a mandate promoted by the boss. He explained it to me this way:
"You know as well as I do that one lens in a thousand comes in with a bashed front element. And that replacing the front element of a lens worth repairing rarely costs more than a hundred dollars (1972 money).
However, we're running a business here. I make at most $60 on a $300 lens, much less on something like a Leica lens (Leica markups are in the range of 8-10% max). If I sell a filter for $15, I make $10. That's a whole lotta profit with no downside ... the user is happy, I get more money, and you get to keep your job."
This is as close to an actual quote as I can make it on a family forum. He added a few colorful expletives in there.
Filters on a lens should be used to filter light. They are only rarely useful for protecting the lens and then only in extreme conditions that a beach generally isn't a good example of. If I were an embedded photojournalist heading through the Iraq desert, sure: I'd fit a filter. The amount of dust in the air isn't going to let me get the best out of my lenses anyway!
Otherwise, common sense prevails. I always fit a lens hood because some protection from flare and casual contact with the other junk in my camera bag is actually worth having, even if I do have to add some shading with my hand to get the best results now and then. With an efficient lens hood, I need such extraordinary measures rather infrequently.
jonoslack
Active member
Well, put it another way - I've never scratched a front element (I've dropped lenses and cameras, fallen over with them, had tripods collapse -all the usual stuff).
However - A very expensive lens came back from a service with a scratched front element - I didn't pay the bill for this, but I did see it, the replacement front element cost less than 5% of the cost of the lens.
The amount of time I've had to spend waiting for Leica to replace a front element is . . . . erm . . .
Protecting myself against something which has never happened . . . and which probably isn't that much of a problem if it does happen really isn't necessary, and if there's a possibility of a downside to image quality, then I'd rather not bother.
. . . and I don't believe you get your money back - either you sell the lens with the filter attached (certainly no premium there) or you have to sell the filter separately - which would be okay, but I never get around to it.
I've got about 8 expensive UV/IR filters (which I used on lenses with the M8). I keep meaning to sell them, but somehow it never happens.
jonoslack
Active member
Hah! depends on the lens hood for me - on the 28 'cron the lens hood changes a small and attractive lens into a horror show . . . which would be alright if it made much difference, but it doesn't and a carefully placed hand is usually better.
On the other hand, there are a few lenses I do use lens hoods for protection, especially if the front element is dangerously exposed (WATE for instance)
Still, I do agree with your point here . . . but not filters . . . never filters!
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/filter/b+w_filter_handbook.pdf
Some useful information on types of filters, coatings, transmittance, and reflections.
Some useful information on types of filters, coatings, transmittance, and reflections.
Godfrey
Well-known member
The hood for the Pentax DA14mm f/2.8 made a big lens into a huge mushroom. However, it provided a nice purchase for a protective foam rubber hood-hat, which thoroughly protected the lens in my bag when I carried it. The standard hood kept falling off ... !
Godfrey
Well-known member
Oh goody! A book full of numbers! ;-)
And some pretty pictures.
But if you want real book with numbers in it:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32823
But if you want real book with numbers in it:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32823
Last edited:
thrice
Active member
I don't think you looked, because it is very graphical and explains the information clearly and concisely.
Double Negative
Not Available
As a matter of fact, yes.
Green blob, courtesy of a B+W 010 UV. Which is MRC coated. Heavily coated, even.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I've actually had that document for some years. It's still a book full of numbers. I enjoy such things, perhaps you don't understand that.
I have some of the original Kodak data books on the Wratten series of filters, from the 1960s. And a box of Wratten filters. Useful for some of the color conversion and Visible-blocking filters. Such things as the 87c, 88a, etc.
Anyone doing Infrared photography might find them useful. As stated before, under extreme lighting situalions it is best to remove the filter. Extreme backlighting is a good example. That's where a quick review on a digital camera is helpful. Chances are the UV contamination will blur the image shot without a filter more than any distortions caused by the filter glass under most shooting conditions.
It should also be noted that the OP is asking about taking pictures of his Kids, and is not a professional being paid to do an assignment. Under the latter, where the pictures are to be published- the cost of the equipment is small in comparison with the income it generates. I am not going to ruin a lens using it to take vacation shots, I keep a filter on it.
Anyone doing Infrared photography might find them useful. As stated before, under extreme lighting situalions it is best to remove the filter. Extreme backlighting is a good example. That's where a quick review on a digital camera is helpful. Chances are the UV contamination will blur the image shot without a filter more than any distortions caused by the filter glass under most shooting conditions.
It should also be noted that the OP is asking about taking pictures of his Kids, and is not a professional being paid to do an assignment. Under the latter, where the pictures are to be published- the cost of the equipment is small in comparison with the income it generates. I am not going to ruin a lens using it to take vacation shots, I keep a filter on it.
Flare is one story but image resolution is another. What you reference from my reply is the latter. If you see two images, one with filter, and one without, and tell them apart based on quality/resolution, I would be impressed.As a matter of fact, yes.
Green blob, courtesy of a B+W 010 UV. Which is MRC coated. Heavily coated, even.
Sure, there is a theoretically higher probably for flare with a filter, but benefits far outweighs drawbacks.. at least for me.
Godfrey
Well-known member
In forty+ years of doing photography, I've not yet ruined a lens ... or a filter when I've used them. But even if you happened to ruin a lens once ... Why be so afraid?
I think the "filter as protection" mindset leads to more casual mishandling and damage through a false sense of security than being confident that you can handle and take care of your equipment without having these placebos in place to reassure you.
I don't think it's fear, it's just a preference. There is no right or wrong, either way.
If you want to buy a filter as insurance, or not, that's ok by me.
If you don't want to buy health insurance, ok by me, too. I'm not sure not having health insurance will lead to more chance of damaged health.
If you want to buy a filter as insurance, or not, that's ok by me.
If you don't want to buy health insurance, ok by me, too. I'm not sure not having health insurance will lead to more chance of damaged health.
I think this thread is going to the same end as any other filter threads.
we all talk about our experiences and tell those who don't agree with you that they are wrong.
It's a personal preference really.
But I do have to say ruining a filter feels much better in my wallet than ruining a lens, and I take of my lenses as best as I can with or without a filter.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I'm sure it will go the way of all threads that incite dogma and belief.
I use filters for a purpose. Insurance or protection are rarely a justifying purpose for a filter, in my opinion. And besides, replacing the front element of a lens isn't all that expensive anyway, only a little moreso than buying high quality filters. Lenses can be repaired pretty easily, you know ...
I'll bow out of the debate now.
I use filters for a purpose. Insurance or protection are rarely a justifying purpose for a filter, in my opinion. And besides, replacing the front element of a lens isn't all that expensive anyway, only a little moreso than buying high quality filters. Lenses can be repaired pretty easily, you know ...
I'll bow out of the debate now.