following a comment by someone from a previous thread (little scratch in the front lense create a visible problems?) regarding the use or nonuse of UV filters to protect your front lense element.

how many people do not use a UV filter over their lens for protection?

-- john molloy (ballyscanlon@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002

Answers

All of my lenses have them, except for my Voigtlander 15mm, which won't take one.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

John: I use either a UV or colored filter on all my lenses. As soon as I purchased them, I put the filter on to prevent them from getting dirty, smudged or scratched. I leave the filter on each of my lenses all the time.I only remove one to replace it with another. I believe this to be a good practice in order to protect the front element of all your lenses.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), April 01, 2002.

My view is: why shell out for expensive Leica glass when you are going to put another glass surface that is bound to add some reflections and flare? I only use filters when I need them, which is very rare.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 01, 2002.

I'm with Mitch on this one.

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), April 01, 2002.

Always. I also have rigid hoods on my lenses (35cron with its dedicated hood, a 50E hood on my 50cron, and a cheapo screw-in 49mm metal hood with a step up ring on my 90E). The front lens caps are in a box and never used. There is supposedly some image degradation with a UV, but I can't see it, and I've only flared twice. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, IMHO. I use B+W MRCs on the 35 and 50, and a Heliopan on the 90. I like the B+Ws better: the anti-reflective coating makes it hard to tell you have a filter on at all.

Anyone have opinions on B+W vs. Heliopan?

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.

I'm firmly in the "UV filters are the work of the Devil" camp. But seriously, I am religious about the use of lens hoods, which I think do a better job of protecting the front elements *&* actually prevent, rather than increase, flare. Otherwise, I usually attach filters only when they provide a desired effect (e.g., colored filters for B&W). The only time I use filters for protective purposes is when I know I'll be shooting in a particularly dirty &/or windy environments (e.g., sandy desert, beach, etc.) & when I'm using my old '50s-era Leitz lenses w/their butter-soft coatings (e.g., Summicron DR).

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 01, 2002.

I use B+W multicoated filters or Hoya MC filters or Heliopan (love their polarizers)on any expensive lens that gets heavy use. Hoods don't protect the front element from wind blown sand, dust, salt or polution. In my experience, any losses from having a thin piece of near perfect multi coated optical glass a few mm in front of the front element are not even measurable. By the way, I tried to measure the hypothetical loss on a Edmund Scientific resolution chart and their was no difference in sharpness or contrast with the better quality filters-much more of a variable is accurate focus and holding the camera still. I get a kick out of how this exact questipon and responses repeats itself every 3 or 4 months, and wonder why we waste our time typing the same answers over and over again.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 01, 2002.

I use B+W MRC UV filters on all my lenses except a few of my Canons (still have some 52 and 77mm Nikon L37c's to use up), and my Hasselblads (the B60's are multicoated Hassy filters, but I use a B+W MRC on the 40CFE). I don't even take the filters off if I use another filter or a polarizer, except on wideangles where they vignette. I've shot the B+W MRC's into backlit scenes and have never seen a deleterious effect more than with the lens unfiltered, so now I don't even take them off for that.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

B+W multi-resistant coat UV filters on both of my lenses. I don't want to clean them too much, and should something strike the front element, well that would be a bummer.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

Took off all my UVs some time ago. I'll occasionally use a medium yellow, or 80A, or a polarizer. Otherwise my view is that filters are just potential sludge between my film & the object of my shoot.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), April 01, 2002.

UV filters on every lens! I've never noticed degradation of the image when using them. One day, I was in the car. I set the camera alongside my right leg, on the seat. Got to thinking about other things. Had car keys in hand, Set car keys on what I thought would be the seat, next to leg. Car keys went right into lenshood and onto UV protection filter! I was glad the UV filter was on. Could see no damage to filter, but it might have scratched some good Leica glass, otherwise.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

"Could see no damage to filter, but it might have scratched some good Leica glass, otherwise."

If your filter was OK the lens would have been OK too, is my guess unless you have ancient glass and then you wouldn't want more flare generating surfaces as the lens would be prone to flare anyway. It is not a resolution issue, it is a flare issue: often the flat plane glass produces a reflection that would not be there if you had no filter in contre jour situations. Also they make the lens longer and in the case of some lenses the lens caps no longer fit properly. As you can guess, I think they are basically a waste of money. At least with a reflex you can see flare in the v/f and so can remove the filter when required, in an r/f you can't. Still there are a million people who completely disagree with me, I know that.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

UV filters are on all my lenses. A simple and cheap way to protect the front element... I use B+W UV MRC exclusively. I do take the filter off however when I use another filter as the diffraction error is CUMULATIVE.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), April 01, 2002.

I don't use filters on any lens normally. I will add a filter (UV) if I'm going into an environment that significantly elevates the chance of damage (blowing dust, violent crowds, whatever). I will also use correction filters (FL-D, etc.) if absolutely required. I will also assume there will be some image degradation.

I don't use lens hoods, either, except for the 90s (the 'cron's is built in, and the TE needs one so often) - and occasionally the 35 (since the combo is still pretty compact.

I've gotten artifacts from filters with all kinds of lenses (wide, tele, normal) from all manufacturers. Reflections; corner smearing with wides; overall softness with teles.

If flat glass has no effect on the image path, then why do lens designs that include removable filters in their designs (Nikkor fisheyes/ superwides w/bayonet rear filters, Nikon/Canon fast teles with filter drawers) all state in their instructions that a filter MUST be in place at all times (at least plain glass) for the lens to perform correctly?

If Mandler or Kölsch didn't included a piece of glass in the design, why should I second-guess them and add it myself?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 01, 2002.

"If Mandler or Kölsch didn't included a piece of glass in the design, why should I second-guess them and add it myself?"

Because they weren't photo retailers who over the years have convinced susceptible buyers that UVA filters were "cheap insurance," when in fact all they are is a profit center for the camera store. The margins stink on cameras, but they're quite good on accessories. Bet lots of UVA buyers were also convinced to buy everready cases to keep their cameras looking nice.

If you want insurance, buy insurance.

If you're shooting in a sandstorm, a filter is probably a good idea. Flower pollen, dog hair or birthday cake crumbs are not likely to hurt your $1000 optics.

-- George T. (davecasman@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.

UVs on all my lenses also, save the appropriate color filter when shooting B+W.

Over the years I've occasionally shot a few frames with and w/o them for comparitive purposes. I can't tell the difference. Perhaps E. Puts can, but not me.

So..cheap insurance.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 01, 2002.

I confess to being a filterholic. I have a long history of keeping either a UVa or SL on the Leicas & Nikons. But since becoming a member of this forum, I'm really trying to cut down. I've joined UVA (UltraViolet Anonymous) and put in all in the hands of the higher power, the Leica lens designers, whom some folks believe offer the promise of a life of photography without filters (mostly).

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 01, 2002.

Call your local Leica distributor and price front elements for each of your lenses. Then look yourself in the mirror, squint, and in your best Clint impersonation say "What you've got to ask yourself is 'do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

B+W Multicoated UV filters on all lenses used in a high humidity envioment near salt water (oceans) or sea estuaries (lower Chesapeake Bay or San Francisco Bay). Also in the Western desert enviornment where strong winds can give the front elements a fit. Ever try to clean sea spray off a lens???

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), April 01, 2002.

Some of you nice people state that you only use filters on your lenses when necessary such as a polarizor or warming filter because any additional piece of glass may degrade your final image. Please then explain to me why using a polarizor or warming filter only "occasionally" will still give you a perfectly acceptable photograph. If you believe they degrade your photo, why then would you ever use them. If at those "occasional" times when you would use them, you don't notice any difference in image quality, then why not use them all the time? Are they acceptable only "sometimes"? I simply do not understand the logic used here. Either way, keep smiling and burn film. :-)

-- ron snyder (studio1401@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

I use B+W filters all the time and I simply cannot see any difference in image quality. On the otherhand, a UVa filter has saved the front element of saveral of my lenses from certain damage. Not my Leica lenses but my Nikon lenses. And yes it was from my own stupidity might I add! ;-)

-- ron snyder (studio1401@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

Ron:

The logic isn't difficult. There's always a trade-off in using any accessory. E.g., a tripod is particularly useful *sometimes*, but I don't keep my camera attached to a tripod *all* the time. Similarly, I'll use a polarizer or other filter (usually colored for B&W) when it will enhance the color/tone, etc. of the entire image & that enhancement outweighs the potential degradation introduced by the filter. However, when shooting in normal situations, I take the filters off because they're unnecessary.

Chris

------

"Some of you nice people state that you only use filters on your lenses when necessary such as a polarizor or warming filter because any additional piece of glass may degrade your final image. Please then explain to me why using a polarizor or warming filter only "occasionally" will still give you a perfectly acceptable photograph. If you believe they degrade your photo, why then would you ever use them. If at those "occasional" times when you would use them, you don't notice any difference in image quality, then why not use them all the time? Are they acceptable only "sometimes"? I simply do not understand the logic used here."

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 01, 2002.

I haven't used a UV filter in over 20 years, not even in the humid/salt enviornment of Florida Bay:

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), April 01, 2002.

Jay, you omitted the 'punk' in your quote. I don't use filters but I'm prepared to start doing so, if it will save me from a .44 mag. ;-)

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.

Everyday twice a day I wash my glasses (plastic Hoya) under the running faucet with soap and then dry them off with whatever toilet paper, paper towel I can find. A year later still no cleaning marks or scratches whatsoever. Just last week I walked into a bar with these glasses and got kind of drunk but still not a mark on the lenses.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 02, 2002.

I only use filters when I need them to solve a specific problem (and I don't consider having the front element exposed to the world to be a problem).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 02, 2002.

Did anyone test out whether there are any visible difference in image quaility with and without filter?

-- Marc (leica_image@yahoo.com), April 03, 2002.

Would they dare,they are a little Holy Grail in the photo-world.How anyone can believe,putting a piece of cheap glass in front a expensive lense....well maybe the video camera man is right.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 03, 2002.

I have photographed various types of scenes with and without the use of UVa filters (B+W multicoated) in an effort to prove to myself that I am not degrading the photo in using these filters. When making these photographs, I am using fine grained Fuji Velvia or Fuji Provia 100F with the camera mounted on a sturdy Gitzo tripod and using a cable release to trip the shutter. I have used this technique in photographing everything from snow scenics to portraits. My conclusion is this: I cannot detect any visible differences with or without the above mentioned filters using a 10X Schneider loupe.

I now have B+W multicoated UVa filters on all my lenses without worry of degraded images because of using filters. I proved it to myself & didn't rely on other opinions. If you really want to know if what I say is true, then do your own testing thereby knowing firsthand whether or not good filters will degrade your images. Don't worry about what others may think or say because you will have proven it to yourself.

I'm not saying CHEAP filters won't degrade an image but my B+W multicoated filters don't degrade MY images. ;-)

-- Ron Snyder (STUDIO1401@AOL.COM), April 03, 2002.

You may be right Ron, but the point that I stress is that it is still a waste of money (those MC filters are not cheap and you need one for every lens) -- and you have to remember to take them off when putting on another filter, lens caps not fitting, storing the damn things when they are not on the lenses etc. etc. So - why not clear the mind of such fluff and go naked? Come on: in the water's lovely!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.

Hi John:

Your question seems to attract a lot of comments.

A little scratch on the front lens is not really noticeable on picture unless you enlarge 1000 times the neg (and the scratches on the neg will show much before, thanks Labs!)

But honestly, having a scratch on a lens that costed arm legs & others is not bearable. Leica Lens have a color correction almost perfect (so IR wave length does not require a special mark, for instance).

So UV filter is not required, however, a HOYA SMC is a good protection against rain drops, finger prints dust, etc and it's easier to clean.

I recently bought a used 55mm UV filter by Leica (price equivalent to a Hoya) but I would not buy it new. Don't buy too cheap, er, don't buy too expensive....

Enjoy Leica-Graphy!

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.