should i use a uv filter on my lenses for protection? i know purists will say don't use one or take it off when shooting, but in the real world, is there really any difference in image quality if i keep a good quality (like B+W multicoated) UV filter on my Leica lenses all the time?

-- tristan tom (tristan@tristantom.com), June 08, 2001

Answers

If it really bothers you then put one on! I used to use them but after twenty years, and never having to replace a damaged filter, I stopped. I am a very meticulous about capping my lenses. Some people photograph in very harsh conditions and replace damaged filters all the time. I keep one handy, just in case that one in a lifetime shot near some acid vats comes up. I guess whatever makes YOU feel happy and secure is the most important. Heck, handholding your camera rather than putting it on a tripod probably has more of an effect than using a UV filter.

Having said all that, one reason they are pushed is that they are a real money maker for the camera store. Nikon sometimes has promotions where the store gets a free UV filter for every lens they sell. Profit margins are typically 100% or more of the actual cost on accessories like these. Hmm, what is the percentage increase when the store gets the filter for free?

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), June 08, 2001.

I don't use filters, or stopped using them after I

1) noticed that I mostly shoot in "tame" situations, i.e. indoors. and 2) realized that I will never be selling my Leica lenses.

HOWEVER,

many here have pointed out how a filter saves the front element from acquiring even the most insignificant micro scratches, which tends to preserve the resale value of these very expensive lenses. These types of scratches are inevitable in unfiltered lenses, though they do not affect the image quality at all, and though you might clean the lenses only infrequently and very carefully.

So, six of one, half a dozen of the other. Do use the best though, if you do filter. B+W multicoated filters.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), June 08, 2001.

Well, it's nice to see some temperate responses to this commonly asked question; it normally causes flame-wars! As the others have said, Tristan, the choice is yours. I would only add a few points:

* Filters can cause flare in contre jour or other shots where there is a bright background or light-source in the frame, since they add another reflective suface that can bounce light around. You should probably remove a UV filter for such shots.

* Should you be unfortunate enough to suffer an accident resulting in a broken filter, there can be severe damage to the lens's front element from the shards of filter glass (but that's rare).

* A filter that is not of uniform thickness could cause image distortion. Even "good quality" filters are not always optically perfect.

* A UV filter does a fine job of protecting the front element from greasy and sticky fingerprints. If your camera could possibly be handled by the uninitiated, especially children, then this is a real risk for an unprotected lens. Touching that shiny front element is a real temptation!

Regards, Ray

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), June 08, 2001.

I like my lens surface UNTOUCHED, such that after tweny years, the lens surface will be as sparkling as new.

When ever I buy a new Leica or Carl Zeiss lens, the first thing I do is to buy each lens a Leica or Zeiss UV filter. I buy only filter made by the manufacturer, and not third party lens, as the manufaturer take utmost care in matching their own color rendition.

I like my lens surface UNTOUCHED, after tweny years, the lens surface will be as sparkling as new.

One thing anoy me about my Contax T2 is that there is no provision for a UV filter, the rather small lens diameter is not easy to clean at the edge. That is the only camera I use without filter.

Walter Zapp designed built in UV filter into every model of Minox camera, the lens is only 4.3mm diamter, and deeply recessed (built in lens hood ), very hard to 'clean' if there were no built in UV filter.

Another reason for me to avoid buying used Leica lens: I don't know for sure the lens had not being 'polished' with shirt sleeve or sock.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 08, 2001.

One of my Minox IIIs camera was made in 1953. Almost half a century when observe with a Seibert Emoscop, the coated lens is still absolutely sparking. The UV filter does a good job in protecting the lens against dust in air and smudges accumulation from evaporation of house hold cooking oil.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 08, 2001.

Look in ads and see if you find Leica lenses with "wipe marks" and you will learn whether to believe those who say Leica coatings can't be scratched from wiping. Look at the prices in those ads to see if they substantiate the claim that Leica lenses with "wipe marks" are just as good as pristine samples. Call your Leica service center, parts department, and ask how much (including labor to install) replacing the front elements of your lenses cost. Finally, shoot a roll of film in all sorts of lighting conditions, one shot with and one shot without a top-quality multi-coated UV filter like the B+W MRC. Then make your decision based on your analysis of your photographic results and financial risk tolerance.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 08, 2001.

Yes, this is question that brings out the obsessives! I don't use them and think it is a camera store con most of the time. In my experience they just add flare in contre-jour situations and are no easier to clean than a front element. All of us who buy secondhand lenses can easily see whether an element is scratched and I have never scratched a Leica lens when cleaning them - mind you I don't clean them much. They don't even do anything to the UV that reaches the film.

Still I would indeed be tempted to use one in a corrosive environment (or a sand storm!) or possibly on older lenses which may have less rugged coatings.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 08, 2001.

For me it's about cleaning my lens optics. By using UV, I don't need to clean optics that carefully, I wipe the UV hard even with alcohol if it works at the very moment. If it's getting too dirty, I just throw it away with a new one. Then I don't have to take extra care for my Leica optics. For some lenses dedicated to B&W, I just throw a medium yellow filter one most of time without a UV.

-- Fred Ouyang (yo54@columbia.edu), June 08, 2001.

The early Leica lenses had their coatings applied by a drip method. They were somewhat soft and prone to "cleaning" marks when new. Worse, these early coatings dry out and become powder. Almost every early lens that is "scratched" just needs to have the front element recoated. The glass is not marked at all. If I wanted an old 50/3.5, I would buy one with cleaning markings and send it off to Focal Point for recoating. It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to recoat and better than a mint in the box one optically when recoated. I have several modern lenses that I bought inexpensively as they had a "mark". I gave them a proper cleaning and they are clear as a bell now.

Now back to the question at hand. I know both photographers, that I admire, who do, and do not use, UV filters. I know photojournalists who have never used UV filters and never scratched a lens. I also know photojournalists who replace their UV filters regularly when they are scratched. So go figure. Use whatever allows you to take the pictures YOU want. If not having a filter keeps the camera in the bag, then get a filter! I having a filter causes problems, then take them off!

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), June 08, 2001.

John, Recently someone here posted that Focal point can not recoat the front element of the 3.5 Elmar--its too small in diameter. I like filters, use them on most all mt lenses, never noticed any of the downsides often quoted. I have super sharp 16 X 20 prints shot through Nikon,Leica & B&W filters. The front elements on all my lenses look like new.I hate using caps on rangefinder lenses except when stored away--too easy to take a picture of the inside of the cap!

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 08, 2001.

And yet again, another thought...

>Another reason for me to avoid buying used Leica lens: I don't know for sure the lens had not being 'polished' with shirt sleeve or sock<

Martin, I read somewhere that HCB was often seen sipping coffee in a corner cafe while polishing up his Leica lens with, of all things, his handkerchief... Makes one wonder if it was before or after he had used it to blow his nose...

For me, cameras and lenses are tools. As such, I don't over-baby them, but I do treat them with care and respect. I consider the minor scratches, dents, bumps and marks they recieve while living their life as "character" marks. I don't really care if I end up lowering the price of a lens or a body by a few hundred dollars - the value of the memory that the small mark brings back of the trip where it was received more than commpensates me for the minor loss in resale value. For the major damage incurred, either through accident or stupidity on my part, I have my gear insured on a PAP, which will pay for replacement or qualified repair should the need arise.

So, to use or not to use UV filters. Personally, I use them as "bump" protecton, but only my lenses with retractible hoods, as I find the rigid hoods provide better protection against bumps; or I will use them as additional protection in environments where blowing sand, salt spray, etc., is prevalent. But as a normal matter, my front elements are naked.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 08, 2001.

There Tristan, now after reading all of these expert opinions, you should now have a crystal clear understanding of whether filter use is a good thing or not.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 08, 2001.

Question for Martin Tai: How does evaporation from cooking oil accumulate on your lenses?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 08, 2001.

I'm not seeing anything on using UV filters to absorb UV. I've seen the effects of UV on color slides at high mountain altitudes (I go to 14,000 feet in Colorado). I own UVA filters, but more typically use a skylight, which seems adequate for UV filtering evan at altitude. UV filters may be good for keeping lenses grease-free. They are. But a lens hood will keep the lens scratch-free, with no anxieties over the degradation of a filter, if not much UV is present.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 08, 2001.

Bob:

For reasonably close sea-level color correction on slide film, at 2500' I add a skylight or an 81a; at 5000' an 81b; at 7500' an 81c; and over 10,000' an 81ef. This seems to do a pretty consistent job with Velvia, Provia and E100s. I also find the skylight through 81b also help with reciprocity color failure when shooting exposures longer than 2 seconds.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), June 08, 2001.