Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]apbbeijing writes: > I use filters often and of many different types (with about 200 at last > count) but I don't think any amount of lab testing of filter-caused image > degradation is going to tell you what you need to know: that can only be > found through practical shooting. Nevertheless I welcome any meaningful > research on the matter. > > Now if there is a logic for camera lenses to have a protective filter, > surely there is an even greater one for enlarger lenses to have them: but > you won't find any Uvs in front of my S-Biogon nor my Focotars! > > Many pros regard UV filters as less than useless: like ERCs. Many others, > myself included, keep UV filters on many lenses as a form of protection. > This is mainly for the lenses that get thrown in the bag in the heat of > shooting rather than for the most expensive or vulnerable optics: my > ultra-wides, macros and long teles have no filters left on nor my MF and LF > lenses but most of my most used 35mm lenses do. I use current B+W MRC UV > filters for the most part and find them best in terms of flare resistance, > cleaning ease and scratch resistance. I do however frequently remove them: > when I am shooting a job where I expect to need a variety of colour or > contrast correction filters I leave the Uvs at home since they otherwise get > in the way. Shooting at night: leave them at home or live with annoying > secondary images all over the picture. There are many other situations where > I would hold the UV and many others where I would not worry but it is only > through experience (i.e. Having screwed up) that I now know when to avoid > them. My advice is get the experience or leave them at home. I spent far > more on UV filters than all the lens repairs I have ever needed. > > With Leica Ms the large number of obscure filter sizes and the fact that you > cannot see the image until it is developed makes Uvs an expensive hazard > IME. I find the worst cases of image degradation I experienced due to the > old chrome rimmed Leitz Uvs. Wouldn't recommend them for general use. > > IME sharpness loss is undetectable but contrast tends to suffer with > filters. I am often staggered by how many macho filter scoffers don't use a > decent lens hood which is part of the original lens design: that is asking > for problems IMHO. But if one gets extremist about these things then a $10k > tripod and a concrete foundation is de rigeur and you can forget about sharp > photos in Southern California and other earthquake prone locations: like > Japan for example (but then we knew that ;^) ) > > Rs > > Adrian > > > > -- > Adrian Bradshaw > Corporate and Editorial Photography > Beijing, China > tel/fax +86 10 6532 5112 > mobile +86 139 108 22292 > e-mail apbbeijing@yahoo.com > OR adrianpeterbradshaw@compuserve.com > > website: http://www.apbphoto.com > http://www.liaisonintl.com/bradshaw.htm > http://www.liaisonintl.com/bradshaw_e.htm > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > FAN-BLOODY-TASTIC reply Adrian. This sums up the whole debate in my mind and is a clear and reasoned approach. How are you? I'm still looking for those Bradshaws on FOM2 ;-) Cheers Alastair