Still being new to this I have a question. I have just brought a UV filter for my Summicron 50mm. Mainly to protect the lens and the coating after an incident which required my lens to be sent to Leica in the UK for some love and affection. I would like to keep the UV0 filter on all of the time (its a hassel to keep taking it off etc). Is this going to affect my results? Im mainly intersted in canded photography in the street, day light conditions.

Thanks for any advice

Jason

-- Jason Vicinanza (jcvicinanza@btinternet.com), February 03, 2001

Answers

Is this going to affect your results? No.

Rob.

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), February 03, 2001.

Jason - It it a fact that adding a filter to the front of the lens will resolution to a degree. That being said, as a practical matter the amount of degredation to resolution is so slight that it would probably take sophisticated equipment to measure the difference -- You will not notice it in normal shooting situations. However, the use of filters does increase the likelyhood of unwanted or excess flare in the image - especially when you have a light-source striking the filter surface at an indirect angle. In an SLR you can usually see this problem in the viewfinder and correct for it - not so easy with the RF. So, for color correction, I use filter; for lens protection (and flare supression) I use a lenshood - and I always use a lenshood when I use a filter to supress the potential for flare.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 03, 2001.

I don't know why words keep getting dropped from my submissions... Greenspun code error or user error? Anyway the first sentence in my response above should have read "...will degrade resolution to a degree."

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 03, 2001.

The only time I've gotten an unwanted side effect of filters is shooting at night outside, where bright lights can repeat themselves in the image like a mirror effect due to having a perfectly flat piece of glass on the front of the lens. There is talk that flare may be increased in back light situations, but on my SLR's (where you can see this through the lens), I've tested it with and without a filter and saw no difference. It seems like lens flare is mostly from light bouncing inside the elements, and not from the front filter. There ares some long, boring, mostly un-substantiated threads at photo.net and the LUG site expounding the terrors of placing a filter in front of a quality optical formula. The loss in quality is only in the minds of the photographers in my experience. I tested this for myself on a resolution chart with a 30 power microscope and there was no drop in image quality. My favorite way to use rangefinder cameras is with a skylight filter and lens hood (no cap), if after 5 years I have to replace the filter, so be it.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 03, 2001.

I would like to know what happened to the lens that reqiured it to go back to Solms?

Here is a copy of a post from the Leica-users from just afew days ago: ------------------ There are no easy answers to The UV filter question. I only use them where the lens is in danger; blowing sand, track side at a car race.....mud wrestling (!?). After twenty years of UV filter use, I never had to change a filter, so I took them off. Did my pictures improve dramatically? No, but, I did have fewer problems with flare. That is a significant point with a rangefinder camera. I do use the supplied lens hood as a bumper and that seems to be enough for me.

It all comes down to you. If you are not going to be comfortable using the camera without a UV filter mounted, then put one on. I started that way but, after listening to all of Ted's ( http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant) and Tina's ( http://main.nc.us/openstudio/tinamanley/) stories, I soon realised it was very unlikely I would encounter anything like they had. If they are not using them why am I?

As a counter point Greg Locke ( http://www.straylight.ca/locke) is based on the east coast of Canada and photographs alot of offshore oilfield work and photojournalism around the world. He encounters gale force winds and hangs out in, and off of, boats and helicopters. He uses UV filters, takes marvellous pictures and has replaced many damaged UV filters. Robert Appleby also uses UV filters ( http://www.robertappleby.com) and his pictures are gorgeous.

Good luck and look at the archives ( http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/) for more......much much more! -------------------- Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), February 03, 2001.

Here is a link to a posting of a somewhat passionate anti-UV filter person:

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v18/msg09453.html

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), February 03, 2001.

I have recently replaced all my Leica and older B+W UV filters with the B+W MRC "Multi Resistant Coating" filters and I highly recommend them. Unlike the others, you can *barely* manage to see your own reflection in these filters, on the lens you have to look hard to see there's glass there. I've shot these straight into flood lights at night with no difference than a "naked" lens.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 03, 2001.

I just read the link John mentioned, and as I stated above, no real evidence was given that showing "the possibility of DEGRADING my photographic result" occurs with a skylight filter. The arguments are all emotional, or based on the logic that "So & so is a renowned photographer and they don't use them, so they must be bad" All that is required is a simple A/B tests to find the truth to the mysterious filter question, which I have done. It is funny how many used lenses are listed as having cleaning or wipe marks "having no effect on the image quality". The same folks who are steadfast about not using a UV filter don't want to pay as much for a lens with cleaning marks.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 03, 2001.

Well, Jim Brick is the anti-UV filter guru of the LUg and he's probably right enough. I keep the filters on because they're like a cap you can take a picture through. Caps would just end up collecting fluff in my pockets, falling off, whatever. This is one of the most emotive issues for Leica users - not for anyone else that I know of! I don't remember seeing this kind of thing on the Nikon User's List or elsewhere. Still, there it is. A personal thing. Rob.

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), February 03, 2001.

Not as an argument against UV filters but merely for your information; early Leica lenses were coated using a "drip" method as the vacuum chamber method was patented by other parties. This "drip" method resulted in coatings that were VERY soft and easily scratched. Seldom is the glass itself actually scratched. The really funny thing is that you can buy an older scratched lens and have it recoated for less than an a lens with mint glass!

All newer lenses have vacuum applied coatings with special hardners on the exposed outer elements.

Should you use UV filters?

Here is an easy way to know. If you are hesitant to take a photograph because you fear for the life of your front element. Then use them! Who cares if it may slightly degrade an image under certain conditions if otherwise you are too scared to use the camera in the first place. Better an image with slight imperfections than none at all.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), February 03, 2001.