Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 70

Thread: Amateur question about leica lens

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Amateur question about leica lens

    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

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    163
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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.

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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

    Just this guy you know

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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.

  5. #5
    Subscriber Member Chuck Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Studio City, CA
    Posts
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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.

  7. #7
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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 .

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Thx
    What's the best Leica filter to use?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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.
    Phil

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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-...schneider.html

    Mods: Please remove link if this is not appropriate.
    Phil

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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.
    Scott

  14. #14
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by SYGTAFOTO View Post
    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?

  15. #15
    Subscriber Member Chuck Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Studio City, CA
    Posts
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by SYGTAFOTO View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    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?

  17. #17
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    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.)


  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    wow huge difference

  19. #19
    Subscriber Member Chuck Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Studio City, CA
    Posts
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

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

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens


  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    The flood light- shot with a 1955 Jupiter-3, single-coated front element, front triplet, uncoated rear triplet. With an IR dichroic filter. It's a Mirror.

    I can live with the flood light, night scene.

    This "filter/No filter" argument is about as age-old as it gets.

    The resolution and dynamic range of the sensor in the M9 is not high enough to resolve any difference with the filter in place. That, and you have a thick IR absorbing filter in front of the sensor, an RGB Mosaic filter in front of the Sensor, grid of offset microlenses in front of the sensor, and a highly reflective surface of the CCD: all are going to affect the image far more than a high-quality multicoated filter in front of the lens. Comparing images from my M8 with my M9 using the same lens, the M8 images are crisper probably due to the thinner IR absorbing filter used over it's sensor. I read on the LUF one member wanted to replace the M9 filter with the one from his M8. I've just learned to live with it, but use the M8 for collimating lenses.

    If you are THAT worried about attaining the highest possible quality from your Leica glass, shoot film.

    If you do not care about damaging your lens, don't use a filter. With an M9, the filter in front of the lens is not going to make any difference in the final image.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    just realized that the person who sold me the lens included a skylight filter by Soligor. Has anyone heard of Soligor? Is that a good filter? just curious...

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Soligor puts their name on products from many maufacturers. Hard to tell, but you would probably do better with a Leica or B&W brand filter. Buy a multicoated filter for best results.

  24. #24
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    If you are THAT worried about attaining the highest possible quality from your Leica glass, shoot film.
    Been there, done that. Sold my Mamiya 7II. The Ma7+43mm and TMAX100 developed in XTOL 1:1, then scanned on my Imacon is comparable to the M9+WATE and Silver eFex Pro. For my purposes, digital has caught up. Film is history. (Actually, the M9 and Silver eFex is superior to film. I'm not kidding.)

  25. #25
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
    just realized that the person who sold me the lens included a skylight filter by Soligor. Has anyone heard of Soligor? Is that a good filter? just curious...
    Do the world a favor and throw it in the trash.

  26. #26
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    The resolution and dynamic range of the sensor in the M9 is not high enough to resolve any difference with the filter in place. That, and you have a thick IR absorbing filter in front of the sensor, an RGB Mosaic filter in front of the Sensor, grid of offset microlenses in front of the sensor, and a highly reflective surface of the CCD: [blah blah blah]
    Real world: M9 results are VASTLY better than film in reproducing subtle tonal differences.

    Your little Internet Theory predicts otherwise.

    Reality is right.
    Your theory is wrong.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    For me, benefits of having a filter in front heavily outweighs any occasional negative effects it may have. Occasional flare I can live with. And I have never had a case where I've seen a significant flare difference between filter/no filter.
    Once I put the filter on, no need to ever touch the front element (no possibilities for scratching), and no need to put on/take off front lens cap.. these two alone were enough for me to buy filters.

    Personal preference really..
    Scott

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Panatomic-X in Microdol was my combination. My first DSLR did not have a Mosaic Filter or IR filter in front of it. Still works, and I've used it for some "filter vs non-filter" tests. Using a Hood with any lens is more important under most shooting conditions than worrying about using a high-quality filter.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Brittenson View Post
    Your little Internet Theory predicts otherwise.

    Reality is right.
    Your theory is wrong.
    I was not being obnoxious about this, why are you?


    No one has produced an image with/without use of filter that shows a dramatic increase in image quality.

    The "no Filter" crowd will always parrot their message.

    Listen or not, do what you want.

    I've been using the Internet since 1980, and filters for longer than that. Try it yourself, and report back. Anyone posting on the Internet is just typing, not shooting.

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    I have. No filters unless you're looking to filter light for some reason. Any other use of filters is to help give the camera salesman a bonus, which isn't a bad thing to do but does nothing for your camera or lens or photography.

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Filters do something for my lens and my photography. I'll just leave it at that.

    Back to the beach: filter or not, if the front of your lens is affected by being on the beach, things probably don't look so good for the rest of the lens and camera too!

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by monza View Post
    Filters do something for my lens and my photography. I'll just leave it at that.

    Back to the beach: filter or not, if the front of your lens is affected by being on the beach, things probably don't look so good for the rest of the lens and camera too!
    Does this mean it's just not a good idea to use Leica M stuff on the beach??

  33. #33
    Senior Member Y.B.Hudson III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    314
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    did anYbodY saY uLtra violet... cough, cough, cough... oops! somEbody forgot sumfin? *








    * [email protected] engineerinG... "fiLters, wE don't nEEd no stinkin fiLters"...mmmmmmmm gOOd onE.

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Older lenses pass ultraviolet light through to the image sensor, and it is not well corrected at the focal plane. The 90 Elmarit is an older lens. This is more of a problem when using film cameras as the sensors in the M8 and M9 are not sensitive in the deeper UV.

    http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFile...00LongSpec.pdf

    But- it does extend down to 3500Ansgtroms, which is below what you can see and what the lens is well-corrected for.

    I keep a UV/IR filter on my longer lenses, even with the M9 and it's stronger IR absorbing filter. There is still some leakage in Infrared. The problem is: the lenses are not as well corrected for UV and IR light, and it tends to smear out the image. Post processing cannot correct it, as it is past the absorbtion curve of the color filter. It corrupts all of the bands. It looks like a weak, out of focus image overlaid on the original.

    With the Internet- you can typically judge the value of advice by the tone that it is given. When there is an "Internet Argument" as occurs with the filter/no filter debate- test for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

    I have a collapsible 9cm f4 Elmar that is the same vintage as the 90 Elmarit. The "Tele-Elmarit" 90/2.8 is later, and a different design. Next nice day that i have some free time, I'll try each with and without filters. The M8 and M9 sensors are limited by the size of their pixels and Bayer pattern Mosaic filter. The absolute resolution is 72 Line-pairs per millimeter (LP/mm). The bayer filter limits it further to 36LP/mm before color aliasing can set in. With these resolution, the difference in a high quality filter will not impact the image. I get color-aliasing with my cameras when using filters. They do not reduce the image quality by an amount that is detectable. Reflections under some situations- you'll see the issue on the M9 screen, take the filter off if it is a problem.
    Last edited by Brian S; 12th December 2011 at 05:26.

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
    Does this mean it's just not a good idea to use Leica M stuff on the beach??
    Use it only if it is Daytime or Nighttime.


  36. #36
    Senior Member thrice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    I use filters, and will continue to always use filters. They have never negatively impacted IQ in any appreciable way. I only use B+W filters.

    Those who say you don't need filters at the beach must be shooting far from the water-line or during very still days/evenings. I routinely clean a sparkling layer of salt off my filters after shooting at the sea-side. The camera also benefits from a wipe down with some distilled water on a tissue after a trip to the beach.

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    Panatomic-X in Microdol was my combination. My first DSLR did not have a Mosaic Filter or IR filter in front of it. Still works, and I've used it for some "filter vs non-filter" tests. Using a Hood with any lens is more important under most shooting conditions than worrying about using a high-quality filter.
    Totally depends on the beach and what the conditions are. It's not a yes or no question ... it's a maybe sometimes one.

    Recently I was in St. Pete's beach FL with my H4D/60 and a few pretty expensive lenses. The wind was whipping really, really fine sand particles all over the place, and I could actually feel the grit on my teeth. This is not the type of soil you wipe with a micro-fibe even after using an Air-bulb ... it takes compressed air, and a lot of it to get this stuff off the lens and camera.

    Filter on.

    Later on, it was filter off.

    It's easy to just carry one in the bag for conditions that warrant it. I put one on my wides when it's snowing because the shallow hood doesn't protect like a deeper telephoto hood does.

    -Marc

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
    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
    If your kids can withstand the sand/grit and what not your camera and lens ought to as well. If it won't (as it appears from the posts) get an all weather digital cam that will probably cost about the same as some of these filters.

  39. #39
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    This is one of those questions for the ages. It will never be answered, and opinions are many.

    I used to use filters, but stopped. The only time I use one is on my Canon L weathersealed lenses (it completes the sealing) or when I expect there may be some danger imminent.

  40. #40
    Subscriber Member Chuck Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Studio City, CA
    Posts
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    I used to be a fanatic about using filters on every lens. It became my standard practice to buy a new lens, then not even take it out of the box until I had the proper UV for the front. And not just any filter either, they needed to be B&W or Leica or Schneider or something really great and really expensive. After all, I wanted the best quality in everything, so the cost of a good filter was just part of the cost of entry.

    I shot for years this way. I didn't know any better. I used to come home after a hard night of shooting, download my night's take, and examine what I got as keepers. I learned to live with the light smears, the "rays" around strong light sources, and all the rest of the aberrations caused by stray light reflections. Some interesting, most degrading the particular image to the point were it was unusable in my opinion.

    Talking with some other professional photographers, I began to understand what the problem was, and what was causing it. It was obvious, and quite clear in my images, though I didn't have the background at the time to understand what was causing the problem. I was seeing correctly, and compensating by staying away from shooting direct light sources right into my lens. I was crippling my technique because of flair, and cursed the designers of the lenses I was using for causing this problem.

    The night a good friend suggested I remove the filter, and shoot a series without it changed my life, and ended my use of filters for good until the M8 came along. All the proof I ever needed, that camera provided. My conclusion, and I freely admit it is a personal choice, was that filters do a fine job of keeping dirt off of my front element, but at a cost of greatly increased flair problems.

    Shooting at the beach as your regular set, maybe you do want to use a filter. Your likely not shooting there at night anyway, and most likely you would have the sun at your back most of the time. Blowing sand or dust, your probably better off gear wise if you just pack it up and go home. Blowing sand and dust can do far worse than getting on the front of your lens. They can both penetrate into the innards of your body if it isn't weather sealed, where they can really cause havoc. Or buy a suitable beach camera, and use that. My wife has a little Canon that is great at the beach, and even capable of shooting underwater down to about ten feet.

    For myself though, the difference in my keeper rate shooting without a filter goes up especially shooting at night. I do this for my living, so having as high a keeper rate as possible means money in my pocket. Sure, it's possible one of these days I could get a scratch on a front element. Probably much more likely cleaning my lenses, if I am not careful. Though all the years of shooting with filters, I never had to replace a single one due to damage. Nor have I had to repair a single lens shooting without one in the many years since. Given the high cost of a good filter, I am probably money ahead in the bank when and if I ever need a lens repair. And I guarantee you I am money ahead shooting professionally from having those extra images for my clients I could not have produced using filters.

    The rules are different for working professionals. We have to get the shots. We have no excuses when we don't, it's our job. Cameras may be our passion in addition, but fundamentally we must work in such a way that our gear earns us our money - or we don't eat. We're only as good as our last job, and only successful if we meet our clients needs. If meeting that bar means occasionally some of our gear is at risk for damage, that is just a part of the cost of doing business for us.

    I don't want to come off here as playing the "P" card either, in dismissing the other side's arguments. There are some very valid uses for filters. For me, it all comes down to doing the math. Each of us is different, both in technique and the subjects we shoot. Speaking only for myself, it is a 3% to 5% difference, or somewhere in that range. Out of 100 frames, if I use a front filter I can count on having three to five of those frames on a night time shoot being unusable for my client. Personally, I need those good frames, as I have no idea in advance if they will be important or not to the story I am shooting. What I do know is the frames I can't use I don't get paid for, and the important ones I can't replace are holes in the story I can not fill.

    In the end, we can all debate this subject until the cows come home to no general conclusion that is right for everybody. Photography is an art, and as such is subject to interpretation with no hard and fast rules that work for everybody. I would suggest though, if you have problems with random light patterns especially in your strong sun shots or when your shooting at night, you may want to conduct a test for yourself. Try shooting a couple hundred frames with your filter, then take it off for a couple of hundred frames - in the same lighting - and see what you get. You many just find your answer to better personal photography. If you aren't having a problem, you don't need to bother. It's not a problem for the type of work your doing.

    One thing I will agree with, if you decide to use front filters, use the good ones. Multi-coated filters have those coatings to help limit these problems. Which, I guess, is all the proof anyone should need that problems do exist using filters!

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    ^ indeed it is! I'll use it only when needed for beach shots if its a bit windy...otherwise no.
    the lens came with a skylight Soligor filter as i said earlier so i may need to buy a b+w...if anyone has one for sale lmk
    Thanks
    Last edited by Moonshine; 12th December 2011 at 12:34. Reason: wrong spelling

  42. #42
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by SYGTAFOTO View Post
    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.
    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.

    Just this guy you know

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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.
    Scott

  44. #44
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by SYGTAFOTO View Post
    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.
    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.

  45. #45
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by SYGTAFOTO View Post
    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.
    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.

    Just this guy you know

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    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.
    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!

    Just this guy you know

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pd...r_handbook.pdf

    Some useful information on types of filters, coatings, transmittance, and reflections.

  48. #48
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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!
    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 ... !

  49. #49
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pd...r_handbook.pdf

    Some useful information on types of filters, coatings, transmittance, and reflections.
    Oh goody! A book full of numbers! ;-)

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Amateur question about leica lens

    And some pretty pictures.

    But if you want real book with numbers in it:

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32823
    Last edited by Brian S; 13th December 2011 at 11:07.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •