Re: [Leica] To use or not to use UV filter

[Charles Dunlap <cdunlap@es.UCSC.EDU>]

>but my 35/2
>Summicron-M cost enough that I want to do it simply for the protection
>it offers.

I remember someone here who referred to one of the leaders of a Leica
photography class (a Leica employee) who wiped his 35/1.4 ASPH on his
cotton shirt to clean it and didn't use a filter. Sure, it's not his loss
if the lens is damaged, but the real point was that the modern coatings are
very durable and perhaps the filter is overkill.

>am I likely to significantly
>decrease the optical performance for which I bought the lens

In getting the most out of the lens a tripod will probably make more
difference than removing the filter in most situations. However, the filter
will cause problems in low light scenes. I was shooting wide open in a
church and got some very distinct reflections (of burning candles against a
dark background) due to the filter. I tested this later and yes, the filter
was the culprit.

So, a quick and dirty approach would be: if you aren't shooting in a
sandstorm don't bother with it. Or go ahead and use it, but remember to
take it off in a situation where you might get flare (shooting against the
light, or in a dark area with a bright light source.)

For taking photos around the picnic table where cousin Jane's daughter Lola
is likely to spray goo on your front element, a filter is a very nice thing
to have.

As with most things in photography there's no categorical yes or no.

>
>The lens in question is the 35/2 ASPH.
>
>  I was quoted
>$75 (special order, at that) by one of my local shops.

I got mine (the Leica E39 UV) for about $46 from B+H.

- -Charlie


- --------------------------------------------
             Charles E. Dunlap
         Earth Sciences Department
          University of California
            Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Tel.: (408) 459-5228    Fax.: (408) 459-3074

         mailto:cdunlap@es.ucsc.edu
- --------------------------------------------