Some of us use them always, some of us use them never, some of us just when we think are convenient.

This is my question:

If the main purpose of skylight filters is protection, why don't binoculars (which are always at more risk of being scratched or hit than any camera in the world) have threads in order to attach skylight filters?

Cheers

-- Javier (j_perezbarberia@hotmail.com), May 22, 2001

Answers

UV filters are a waste of time, unless that is you really want to filter out more UV (I don't think this is useful really either as lenses absorb UV anyway) or are in a very dirty environment and so worry about the front element being ruined. If you want to alter the light at all then a skylight filter seems more useful to me. As you say the absence of them on binoculars demonstrates this truism, unless of course the front element on binoculars is actually a clear filter whose sole function is to protect the underlying optic! I don't bother with them at all.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 22, 2001.

Robin, I totally agree with you.

-- Javier (j_perezbarberia@hotmail.com), May 22, 2001.

I don't see the benefit of comparing binoculars with Leica camera lenses. This really seems like comparing apples and oranges.

I don't know what a high quality pair of binoculars costs, but I suspect that they're less expensive than Leica camera lenses. Also, I don't know that minor damage to binocular lenses will ruin their value to the same extent that it would with camera lenses, as they're used for entirely different purposes. Finally, some optical equipment have 'built in' protective coatings and/or filters, so this further complicates comparison.

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@att.net), May 22, 2001.

Ken:

For what it's worth, my Leitz 10X42 binoculars cost me just under $1,000; more than some of my M lenses, less than others...

Javier:

As I've stated in earlier posts on this subject, I believe that rigid lenshoods provide more protection (and supress flare better!) for a lens than do UV filters. However, with some of the newer M lenses, aka my 50 Summilux, the sliding lenshoods offer almost no protection, so I use a UV filter for that purpose. Also, I feel the UV filter is useful as a shoot-through lenscap. Beyond the protection factors, I don't feel the UV filter does anything worthwhile, and agree with Robin that a skylight or 81 series filter will do a better job of removing the excess blue in an image.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 22, 2001.

well, it may be foolish of me to enter this contest, but I'll just say that I wouldn't dream of not using a filter or protection. When I look at my filters after a year or so, they often have cleaning marks which I assume would otherwise be on the lens front element. And there are other reasons.

I'm happy to use them and have never ever noticed any negative effects. But then Leica lenses are overkill for my kind of photography anyway. But I like to keep them as pristine as possible.

That's all, I'm sure there will be many negative reactions to this post but guess what? The filters stay on my lenses!

-- rob appleby (rob@robertappleby.com), May 22, 2001.

Uv or sky filters are probably a waste of money on the newer stuff that has a very hard coating. I sure wish more people used them back in the 1950's and 1960's, however, as maybe then you could still buy a chrome Summicron without cleaning marks on the front element. I don't see many used newer lenses being sold with cleaning marks in the description. I wonder how much abuse the newer coatings can take before they get marked up-anyone want to get out some abrasives and test it out for us on their Noctolux?

I have always used a quality multicoated skylight filter as insurance against marking up the front element. I mainly do this because I also tend to go with a filter and hood and don't bother using a cap when I'm out shooting.

-- Andrew schank (aschank@flash.net), May 22, 2001.

I have never had cleaning marks or a scratch on any of my lenses. Mind you I do keep a cap on them when not in use. I think if you are like Andrew and hate lens caps (there is a logic here) then maybe a UV is sensible. Also of course if you do have UV filters then presumably they are replaced every now and then if they get cleaning marks. Most people I know have UV filters and have never changed them even once - which again leads me to conclude that they do not need them. Perhaps it provides piece of mind?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 22, 2001.

I actually did replace a few sky filters recently. They were 20 years old and had more than a few marks on them.

-- Andrew schank (aschank@flash.net), May 22, 2001.

I've seen and heard this topic beaten to death on every list and BBS I've ever read. My weary answer is that a couple of very expensive lessons have convinced me that I'm always going to use a UV filter. I use B+W MRC Multi-Resistant-Coated, you almost can't tell that there's glass inside the mount and they wipe clean without smearing. They're my lenses (read: my money) and my images. Likewise I'd never waste my breath trying to change anyone's mind who's dead-set against using them on *their* lenses.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 22, 2001.

As a proviso of course it is a dull topic, but I think many of us are irritated with the way that most buyers are suckered into buying these things when they buy lenses as a matter of course by the salesman. People need to think whether they really want or need them. I usually see it as a quick way for the store to make more profit. The ironic thing is that for very long and large and expensive lenses (280 f2.8 etc.) they are too big to allow a filter and yet these, arguably, have the largest lens surface so need protection the most.

I agree with Jay though the MRC filters are excellent and,if I needed them, these would probably be the type I would get.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 22, 2001.

that "newer stuff with hard coating" would be frosted glass after a season of blown pumice on one of our local volcanos -and that's nothing compared to the high-velocity grit you encounter in nepal. I also use B&Ws and toss 'em annually if not sooner!......

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), May 22, 2001.

Skylight filter is not UV filter.

Sklylight filter is slightly warmer.

I always use Leica UV filter on Leica lens, Carl Zeiss UV filter on Carl Zeiss lens, as Leica UV filter has different color redition vs the Carl Zeiss one.

However, for some reason, when checking the Leica UV filter under bright sun new a window in a room, the Leica UV filter reflection is a bright circle, while the Carl Zeiss T* UV filter casts only a dim reflection. This indicated that the Carl Zeiss T* UV filter has very little light loss.

A good multicoated UV filter is suppose to transmit 99% of light, Carl Zeiss T* UV filter performs better than Leica UV filter.

There fore, it seems to me, there is advantage of not using Leica UV filter. But for protection reason, I always use them.

There is one advantage of Leica UV filter: the reflected spot on the wall is white, which means Leica UV filter does not change color rendition of lens.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 23, 2001.

Anyone who believes that UVs don't do anything protective is welcome to send me theirs, in exchange for the one that's been on my lens for a year and a half. Since there's nothing that could possibly happen to the front of a lens without one, rest assured that mine is, uh, well, minty. Those aren't really scratches on it--they'll clean right off :-) Don't need no stinkin' lens caps!! :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001.

A flat UV filter is easier to clean than to clean a curved lens surface.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 23, 2001.

The slight salmon color of the skylight filter may appear inconsequential when merely looking at the filter. The difference in color rendition can be substantial. I shot an approaching storm in Rocky Mountain National Park with first the Leitz UVa, then the Leitz SL. The UVa rendered the storm cold, bluish, and foreboding. The SL turned it into a pretty-pink romanticized image. Which is better? They're both good. Two very different interpretations. The SL is not just for protection. It removes the excess blue from reflected skylight so that shadow areas and other areas not directly sunlit are not rendered with a blue cast. For the same reason, it's good for portraits shot contre-jour. Two pictures, one with and one without, will be worth a thousand words.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 23, 2001.

"Two pictures, one with and one without, will be worth a thousand words."

Well that's what we aim for, anyway!

-- rob appleby (rob@robertappleby.com), May 24, 2001.