Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] UV glue
From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 08:48:30 -0800

Since the early sixties, all Leica lenses use UV inhibiting glue between
the elements, as well as UV inhibiting capabilities within the glass
formula. Leica states that extra UV filtration is unnecessary at any
altitude. It is taken care of in the lens manufacturing.

Jim

At 09:15 AM 11/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Hey LUGgers,
>
>Based upon the comments of LUGgers whose opinions I have come to respect, I
>am "going naked" as regards UV filters for the first time in more than 20
>years of trying to record quality images on film.  My prime motive had been
>front element damage protection with UV reduction a close second.  At the
>time, I began with a surprisingly dependable, very accurately metered non
>Leica SLR, I was shooting films that I now believe were simply blue biased,
>and quality, multicoated UV filters seemed the good fix.
>
>I have lived in Colorado, USA for several years [on three different
>occasions, actually], and we do have an abundance of UV, especially up high.
>At altitude, there is sufficient UV to blue-cast outdoor photographs on
>almost any film.  Certainly, there is plenty of room for differing opinions
>on this, but perhaps the most convincing argument I have encountered has
>come in the form of a side bar note I came across on the web a few months
>ago regarding a product called Absorban, which is a between-lens-element
>cement designed [?] developed [?] trademarked [?] by Leica which effectively
>filters [absorbs?] blueing UV rays.
>
>This along with Jim's comments about the durability of Leica lens coatings
>has convinced me to go without UV filters, and I like to think I am sneaking
>up on capturing Erwin's higher "percentages" of my lenses' capabilities to
>make photographs.  The logical question emerges about whether I can
>routinely see the difference, and I would have to admit no, except perhaps a
>bit in contre-jour photographs, especially with zooms.  And admittedly, this
>is an extreme of an extreme situation, but it is one that occurs with some
>regularity if one is taking photos out of doors.
>
>Naked is good!  Enjoy the light.
>