# Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?



## RC (Oct 16, 2013)

Getting ready to order my 24-70 f/2.8 II and want to include a protective filter with my order. I haven't read about any vignetting with this lens using a standard filter but want to make sure I don't need the thin version. Can someone please confirm if a standard filter works without vignetting?

Looking at either:
- B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
- B+W 82mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

Thanks


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 16, 2013)

RC said:


> Getting ready to order my 24-70 f/2.8 II and want to include a protective filter with my order. I haven't read about any vignetting with this lens using a standard filter but want to make sure I don't need the thin version. Can someone please confirm if a standard filter works without vignetting?
> 
> Looking at either:
> - B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
> ...



No problem. The XS-Pro MRC-nano repels dirt and grease insanely well.
I'm using the B+W 82mm 007 Clear MRC-nano XS-Pro DIGITAL and the B+W 82mm KSM C-POL MRC F-PRO.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 16, 2013)

RC said:


> Getting ready to order my 24-70 f/2.8 II and want to include a protective filter with my order. I haven't read about any vignetting with this lens using a standard filter but want to make sure I don't need the thin version. Can someone please confirm if a standard filter works without vignetting?
> 
> Looking at either:
> - B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
> ...



I used this on my L lenses. Never go back to regular UV ever again. Get the standard one so you can mount ND or CPL on top(can't do that on slim).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756819-REG/B_W_66_1066112_82mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2013)

I have the XS-Pro Nano on mine, but I do have an 82mm F-Pro (on my TS-E 24L II, where vignetting isn't an issue) that I can quickly test on my 24-70 II. I'll try to do that today.


----------



## replay0 (Oct 16, 2013)

I use the "- B+W 82mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter" with my 24-70II with no vignetting. I just hate the lens cap design. Too easy to fall off.


----------



## RC (Oct 16, 2013)

Thanks all for the quick feedback! Looking forward to Neuro's test results and getting my new lens.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 16, 2013)

You can't stack filter on it anyway, use as thin as possible. I have a BW slim and tried a non front thread pol
On top and vignetting can't be corrected.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2013)

The lens has a fair amount of native vignetting - over 2 stops in the corners. However, filters don't add to that - presumably due to the 82mm filter thread. I tested an XS-Pro mount (3.4mm thick), an F-Pro mount (5mm thick), and the two filters stacked, and didn't see an increase in the optical vignetting in any case.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 16, 2013)

I'm sure you won't use a cheap filter, but look at this post that just popped up on LensRental's blog about the 24-70II:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters


----------



## J.R. (Oct 16, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I'm sure you won't use a cheap filter, but look at this post that just popped up on LensRental's blog about the 24-70II:
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters



Thanks! Roger is as informative as ever!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 16, 2013)

Here are three shots, one with only B&W xs-pro and one with Heliopan HT slim (no front threads) and onw with the pol stacked on top of the clear filter.

Only Clear






Only pol





Both stacked





Don't forget to scroll sideways or the problem isn't visible ;D

Nothing is done to either image. And that darkening of the outer corners doesn't go away with +100 correction in Lr, and when pushed even more to try and correct it adds a great deal of noise. At this point 24mm becomes useless imo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Don't forget to scroll sideways or the problem isn't visible ;D



Why scroll sideways? I can see the left upper/lower corners without scrolling. If the vignetting is worse in one or two corner(s) than the others, there's likely a slight decentering of an element in the lens.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget to scroll sideways or the problem isn't visible ;D
> ...



I had to scroll sideways here at least.

To me it seems quite even when looking at them here, but the very far corners and small area becomes veryvery dark.


----------



## sulla (Oct 16, 2013)

I have a standard thickness F-PRO filter with this lens. It is fine. No need for the ultra-slim X-Pro, but it won't hurt either. The "nano" editions are good, as they repel dust a lot more and (presumably) have even less reflection than the MRC ones. I would take the one that is more readily available.

But I'd prefer the "clear" 007 ones over the "UV" 010 ones.

As for polarizers, I recommend standard thickness ones, as they don't vignett either and are much easier to turn than the slim ones.


----------



## Zen (Oct 16, 2013)

I use the Heliopan multi coat uv, as on all my lenses, with no problem whatsoever. I like the Heliopan for its brass ring and threads, and well machined so that they do not stick, cross thread, etc. On and off easily without fear of jamming.

Eepensive but worth the $.

Good luck.

Zen


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 16, 2013)

If you're going to get a thin filter, make sure you get a high quality one. Looks like the cheap ones may come into contact and scratch the center of the front element. Roger @LensRentals shows evidence of it. But only with the cheap, discount ones apparently, combined with the slightly protruding front element.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 16, 2013)

*PSA: Don't use cheap thin filters on 24-70v2*

So, Roger @LensRentals has come up with some really useful information again. Cheap/discount thin filters can actually contact the front element of the 24-70v2 (and potentially others that have slightly protruding front elements) and scratch the center. 

I guess this is another case of don't buy cheap filters.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 16, 2013)

*Re: PSA: Don't use cheap thin filters on 24-70v2*

JUST DON'T BUY CHEAP FILTER AT ALL


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 16, 2013)

B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter



Yes, that works and it's what I use. But the point of the thread was is the thinner mount needed, and it isn't. The F-Pro MRC version works just fine, no additional vignetting, the lens cap fits more snugly (less of a gap, though there still is one at least with the side pinch cap that I have), and it costs 1/3 less.


----------



## RC (Oct 17, 2013)

Thanks all for sharing your vignetting reults! Just ordered the lens and B&W F Pro filter from B&H and saved myself an extra $300. What a nice surprise that was. Things like that do not happen to me. I almost ordered it last night but decided to post this question about filters vignetting. ;D ;D ;D

Oh, and I already have a 82mm B&W thin CPL that I use on my 16-35 II.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
> ...


+3 that's the one I use as well, and it looks like RC bought it, too.


----------



## M.ST (Oct 17, 2013)

I can´t recommend to use a protective filter. 

The only filters you need are polfilters, ND filters and ND grad filters.

But if you want a filter buy a slim filter from B+W.


----------



## Dick (Oct 17, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I can´t recommend to use a protective filter.



It is indeed more or less the same as having transparent plastic on your sofa for protection. One could also think about condoms as another example. The additional protection ruins things, but some people would be in pain had they not used protection. 

I used filters earlier, but noticed that without them outcomes were better. I still have the filters just in case I need them for something.... Haven't needed them yet and my front elements are doing just fine.

1) an expensive lens + a cheap filter = crap
2) a cheap lens + a cheap filter = crap
3) an expensive lens + an expensive filter = worse than the plain lens = crap

*Use the lens hood.* In most cases hoods are useless for their initial purpose, but they protect front elements nicely.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 17, 2013)

Ah yes, the age old question to use a filter or not to use a filter. For best IQ, no filter. For people (like myself) that aren't always careful or lucky, filters. I have taken filters off my lenses after 2-3 years and they're covered in scratches, so obviously it makes sense for me, but 99% of my shooting is outdoors in harsh conditions.


----------



## Dick (Oct 17, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Ah yes, the age old question to use a filter or not to use a filter. For best IQ, no filter. For people (like myself) that aren't always careful or lucky, filters. I have taken filters off my lenses after 2-3 years and they're covered in scratches, so obviously it makes sense for me, but 99% of my shooting is outdoors in harsh conditions.



Canon Glass


----------



## docholliday (Oct 17, 2013)

Then, there's people like me, who never use a lens cap. Well, except for when I get rid of the lens. Otherwise, it has a Heliopan UV MRC on the front of it at all times and of course, the hood.


----------



## hwoarang5 (Oct 17, 2013)

for bang for buck filter i use Hoya HD on mine very tough and reliable.... i knock, scratch and smudge my filter all the time... so far so good... all my lens are using HOYA HD... last month i was introduce a slightly cheaper ones with equality of quality.. shop seller said its better in fact than HD... i got em for my 135mm F2.. so far so good as well... 


```
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/876156-REG/Rodenstock_407211_72mm_UV_Blocking_HR.html
```


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
> ...


At your recommendation, I sold all my regular B+W filters to buy B+W XS-Pro versions, now you are promoting the regular B+W filters? not cool man! ;D ... just kidding, actually my earlier (above) post was the last one for the day before I went to bed and didn't bother to check if everything I posted showed up. What I meant to say was that "I recommend XS-Pro version as it can be shared with 16-35 L II, where having a thinner version is better" .... but for some reason only the product name showed up in my earlier post.


----------



## digitalpuppy (Oct 18, 2013)

I just hit “purchase” on the 24-70 II USM since I didn’t know when the sale would end at B&H. This is a great – but frustrating – thread for me because I thought I knew which filter I was going to purchase: Hoya UV Haze HD, but now after following this thread I am looking at the B+W XS Pro. I also have to admit that those suggesting no filter are making a pretty good case as well.

I do a lot of indoor shooting and plan to use this lens for video (mostly indoor). I’m no pro but really baby all the gear that I own so Dick’s Lens Hood protection method is intriguing. 

At the risk of not getting too off-topic, can someone comment on the Hoya UV Haze HD versus the B+W XS Pro?


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 18, 2013)

digitalpuppy said:


> I just hit “purchase” on the 24-70 II USM since I didn’t know when the sale would end at B&H. This is a great – but frustrating – thread for me because I thought I knew which filter I was going to purchase: Hoya UV Haze HD, but now after following this thread I am looking at the B+W XS Pro. I also have to admit that those suggesting no filter are making a pretty good case as well.
> 
> I do a lot of indoor shooting and plan to use this lens for video (mostly indoor). I’m no pro but really baby all the gear that I own so Dick’s Lens Hood protection method is intriguing.
> 
> At the risk of not getting too off-topic, can someone comment on the Hoya UV Haze HD versus the B+W XS Pro?


Congrats on the new lens, though I am a bit envious of the deal you received on it! The Hoya threads are perfectly fine but a bit harder to clean than the B+Ws, especially the Nano models. The trick is to clean the Hoya filters with whatever method you normally use, then breathe on it and use a microfiber cloth to clean off the condensation.


----------



## Jim O (Oct 18, 2013)

Just to throw some actual data into the mix, look at http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html. I know it's a few years old, but it's objective (perhaps even "scientific") and _may_ be helpful.

[OFFTOPIC]They also have data on circular polarizers at http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html. It's also a few years old.[/OFFTOPIC]

Heliopan comes out poorly in both and seems a poor value for the money, at least at the time these were written. Hoya UV filters and Marumi polarizers seem to give the best results. especially when cost is factored into the analysis. Again, this is a few years old and may not reflect current models.


----------



## Ripley (Oct 18, 2013)

Is there an optical difference between...

- B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
- B+W 82mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2013)

For anyone looking at the Lenstip UV filter tests, like any test where a 'score' is generated, it's important to understand the factors that are used to generate that score. 

For example, the B+W filter does better than the Hoya on visibile light transmission and flare, whereas the Hoya does better at blocking UV light (the latter accounts for a 5-point difference on their 40-point scale). In fact, if you look at the measured transmission curves, the reason the Hoya does better at blocking UV is that the left side of the bandpass starts at a slightly shorter wavelength - and that means the Hoya filter blocks UV better at the cost of also blocking some of the visible blue light. The Heliopan, on the other hand, is significantly worse than the Hoya in that it blocks even more of the blue light.

As a dSLR user, I don't care about UV blockage, since dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV (my choice might be different if I was shooting film). But I do care about visible light transmission (including deep blues, where the camera's own reduced insensitivity doens't need the filter makeing it worse), and I care about flare. So for me, the B+W is the better choice from an optical standpoint.



Ripley said:


> Is there an optical difference between...
> 
> - B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
> - B+W 82mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter



B+W states, "_ The nano coating is an outer layer of protection that comes standard with all XS-Pro Digital MRC filters. The nanotechnology based characteristic (lotus effect) produces a better beading effect with water making the cleaning of this filter even simpler and faster than ever before. MRC nano has an improved outer (8th) layer over regular MRC."_ So, the implication is the the Nano coating provides physical benefits but not optical benefits. I haven't noticed any optical differences between my MRC and my Nano filters.


----------



## jasonsim (Oct 18, 2013)

I personally use the B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter and B+W 82mm Kaesemann XS-Pro Circular Polarizer MRC Nano Filter on my 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II lens. They are real quality. But I also use Hoyal Digital Pro-1 UV filters on other Canon L primes that I have. Like Nero says, the Hoya's tend to add a warmth to the photos. I sometimes like that about them. They are really good filters too, but the B+W is just built a bit better.

You might even consider some of the newer Hoya filters like the EVO line:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855499-REG/Hoya_XEV82UV_82mm_EVO_UV_0.html


----------



## J.R. (Oct 19, 2013)

Do the lens caps fit with the B+W nano filters?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I can´t recommend to use a protective filter.
> 
> The only filters you need are polfilters, ND filters and ND grad filters.



It depends. I was once filming a sports celebration, all of a sudden bonfires popped up, next thing I know I get back and notice that tiny embers apparently burned permanent damage marks all over the filter coating. I'm pretty glad I had a filter on! And I once somehow got a scratch on a front element, not sure how, but had it had a filter....

Under decent conditions when flare scenarios are encountered I tend to leave them off though.



> But if you want a filter buy a slim filter from B+W.



Why? They cost more and are not needed. Some of the slim ones don't take caps well either. I don't like them at all.
(B+W is good, it's the slim that I'm not fond of)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> For anyone looking at the Lenstip UV filter tests, like any test where a 'score' is generated, it's important to understand the factors that are used to generate that score.
> 
> For example, the B+W filter does better than the Hoya on visibile light transmission and flare, whereas the Hoya does better at blocking UV light (the latter accounts for a 5-point difference on their 40-point scale). In fact, if you look at the measured transmission curves, the reason the Hoya does better at blocking UV is that the left side of the bandpass starts at a slightly shorter wavelength - and that means the Hoya filter blocks UV better at the cost of also blocking some of the visible blue light. The Heliopan, on the other hand, is significantly worse than the Hoya in that it blocks even more of the blue light.
> 
> ...



+1

also, just get a clear 007 B+W and get even more complete spectral transmission, digital doesn't need UV cut


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 19, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Do the lens caps fit with the B+W nano filters?


Yes the lens cap fits the B+W XS-Pro Nano filters ... and the good thing is they are almost as thin as the slim filters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Do the lens caps fit with the B+W nano filters?



Yes. There's a small gap (~0.75 mm), but I haven't found it to be a problem. The F-Pro filters have a gap, too, although it's smaller.


----------



## Ripley (Oct 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> For anyone looking at the Lenstip UV filter tests, like any test where a 'score' is generated, it's important to understand the factors that are used to generate that score.
> 
> For example, the B+W filter does better than the Hoya on visibile light transmission and flare, whereas the Hoya does better at blocking UV light (the latter accounts for a 5-point difference on their 40-point scale). In fact, if you look at the measured transmission curves, the reason the Hoya does better at blocking UV is that the left side of the bandpass starts at a slightly shorter wavelength - and that means the Hoya filter blocks UV better at the cost of also blocking some of the visible blue light. The Heliopan, on the other hand, is significantly worse than the Hoya in that it blocks even more of the blue light.
> 
> ...



Thank you Neuro. Would you mind commenting on the B+W UV models versus the B+W Clear models? All of my lenses currently have the F-Pro UV model on them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2013)

Ripley said:


> Thank you Neuro. Would you mind commenting on the B+W UV models versus the B+W Clear models? All of my lenses currently have the F-Pro UV model on them.



Really only matters if you're shooting film. For a dSLR, there's no significant difference between UV and Clear. My advice would be to get whichever is cheaper and/or more available (varies by size, vendor, and geography).


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Neuro. Would you mind commenting on the B+W UV models versus the B+W Clear models? All of my lenses currently have the F-Pro UV model on them.
> ...



Thanks, your advice from this old thread answered three new questions of mine (XS-Pro vs F-Pro for the 24-70 II, will the cap fit in the former, UV vs clear).


----------



## digitalpuppy (Nov 27, 2013)

Partially based on this thread (and some other photographer friends) I went with the B+W XS Pro Clear Nano 007. The combo is still new to me, but I'm taking some gorgeous shots with my 24-70 II (center-pinch cap). Thanks for all of the feedback!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 29, 2013)

digitalpuppy said:


> Partially based on this thread (and some other photographer friends) I went with the B+W XS Pro Clear Nano 007. The combo is still new to me, but I'm taking some gorgeous shots with my 24-70 II (center-pinch cap). Thanks for all of the feedback!



It's interesting how the same thread can give two individuals entirely different suggestions. I guess it shows that the answer one seeks is really within one's mind, and they view the world accordingly to suit that answer... : : :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 29, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> It's interesting how the same thread can give two individuals entirely different suggestions. I guess it shows that the answer one seeks is really within one's mind, and they view the world accordingly to suit that answer... : : :


 ???


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 29, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting how the same thread can give two individuals entirely different suggestions. I guess it shows that the answer one seeks is really within one's mind, and they view the world accordingly to suit that answer... : : :
> ...



Oh, never mind. I was just amused how while I figured from the post F-Pro will be fine for my 24-70 II, while digitalpuppy went with the XS-Pro based on the same thread.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 29, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


OK, I get it now. Cheers


----------



## WPJ (Nov 29, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I can´t recommend to use a protective filter.
> 
> The only filters you need are polfilters, ND filters and ND grad filters.
> 
> But if you want a filter buy a slim filter from B+W.



thanks,for this, but can you say why do you have any reasoning to go with your statement?


----------



## entlassen (Dec 3, 2013)

I'm reading through this thread and have some questions about the B+W line of 82mm Clear filters, of which I see three on B&H:

(A) B+W 82mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 [$121.95]
(B) B+W 82mm 007M Clear MRC Filter [$100.66]
(C) B+W 82mm Clear Slim MRC 007M filter [$139.99]


*My questions are:*
*1)* I know that (C) is "thin." I know that (B) is "standard." But what is (A), thin or standard?
*2)* I see this warning in the item description for (A) on B&H's site:


> This filter ring's outside diameter is slightly larger than the actual thread size, and because of this you may be unable to attach the lens manufacturer's bayonet-mounted lens hood to the lens while using this filter. This is dependent on your specific lens and how thick the front rim of the lens is; with thinner, low-profile lenses usually being affected more.


Does this lens hood problem affect the 82mm XS-Pro on the 24-70 f/2.8 II? And is this a problem with the 77mm XS-Pro on the 70-200 f/2.8 II?
*3)* I see people in the thread mentioning a 82mm "F-Pro" filter. Is that referring to (B), or something else entirely? I can't seem to find a mention of "F-Pro" on B&H.
*4)* Is stacking a circular polarizer filter on top of an existing Clear/UV filter something that people commonly do? Or are you supposed to take off the Clear/UV filter first, then screw on the circular polarizer?
*5)* Is (A) too thin to stack another filter on top of it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2013)

entlassen said:


> I'm reading through this thread and have some questions about the B+W line of 82mm Clear filters, of which I see three on B&H:
> 
> (A) B+W 82mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 [$121.95]
> (B) B+W 82mm 007M Clear MRC Filter [$100.66]
> ...



1) 'A' (XS-Pro) is thin, but has front threads whereas the Slim does not, meaning the standard lens cap doesn't work (it comes with a slip-on). By the numbers, for non-CPL filters: F-Pro (the official name of the 'standard' mount) is 5mm thick, XS-Pro is 3.4mm thick, and Slim is 3mm thick. 

2) Ignore the 'warning'. I've got XS-Pro filters in many sizes, no issues with hoods. 

3) Yes, F-Pro is 'B'. In addition to XS-Pro and Slim, you may also see Extra-Wide - those have bigger glass to avoid vignetting (e.g., the 77mm EW has 77mm threads but an 82mm filter - those do often cause hood problems).

4) Stacking provides no benefit (other than speed). Conventional wisdom is it hurts IQ, I haven't tested it...but I don't stack unless I'm in a big hurry. I do stack a CPL on an ND, though, to get combined effects. 

5) Since 'A' (XS-Pro) is thin but has a front thread, that's the one you want if you're going to stack - a thinner stack means less chance of vignetting. You can't stack another filter onto a Slim filter.


----------



## entlassen (Dec 3, 2013)

Wow, thanks neuroanatomist for the incredibly quick and comprehensive reply! 

Is the XS-Pro's front-thread the same size as the F-Pro's, or is it smaller since the XS-Pro itself is thin? I'm just curious because if there's one thing I hate, it's a small profile front-thread which causes lens caps to have problems staying on (whether it be the old Canon models or the new "center-pinch" models). I've lost a couple of lens caps in the past because they couldn't stay on properly (using another brand of filters).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2013)

entlassen said:


> Is the XS-Pro's front-thread the same size as the F-Pro's, or is it smaller since the XS-Pro itself is thin? I'm just curious because if there's one thing I hate, it's a small profile front-thread which causes lens caps to have problems staying on (whether it be the old Canon models or the new "center-pinch" models). I've lost a couple of lens caps in the past because they couldn't stay on properly (using another brand of filters).



The XS-Pro thread has a lower profile, so there's a gap - but it's not big, I'd say about 0.75mm. The F-Pro has a gap, too, though its slightly smaller:







I've never had issues with caps popping off either filter, and I take lenses in and out of various bags a lot.


----------



## entlassen (Dec 3, 2013)

Thanks for the clarification! I guess XS-Pro is the best option (price notwithstanding), since you get the thin profile and it still has front-threading.

I do wonder though, if you have an XS-Pro circular polarizer, whether the thin profile makes it more annoying to use, since it might make it more difficult for your hand to grasp/twist it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2013)

entlassen said:


> I do wonder though, if you have an XS-Pro circular polarizer, whether the thin profile makes it more annoying to use, since it might make it more difficult for your hand to grasp/twist it.



I wonder about that, as well - but they're probably fine. The F-Pro CPL is 7mm thick, the Slim is 5mm thick, and the XS-Pro is only 4mm thick. I have 77mm and 82mm Slim Käsemann CPL filters, which I bought before they came out with the XS-Pro CPL. The Slim ones rotate easily, even with the thin knurled ring. But, if you stack a Slim CPL onto another filter, it can be difficult to remove if it 's tightened down hard. If you ever plan to stack filters, you should have a set of filter wrenches in your bag (they're cheap, I have several sets so I can just leave them in several bags). The issue with the Slim CPL is you have to grab the lens-side ring, and it's pretty thin...and the XS-Pro might be even thinner.


----------



## entlassen (Dec 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The F-Pro CPL is 7mm thick, the Slim is 5mm thick, and the XS-Pro is only 4mm thick.



Slim CPL is thicker than the XS-Pro CPL? That's sort of weird, since you mentioned the opposite was true for the Clear filters (i.e. F-Pro 5mm, XS-Pro 3.4mm, Slim 3mm).


----------



## ahab1372 (Dec 3, 2013)

entlassen said:


> Thanks for the clarification! I guess XS-Pro is the best option (price notwithstanding), since you get the thin profile and it still has front-threading.
> 
> I do wonder though, if you have an XS-Pro circular polarizer, whether the thin profile makes it more annoying to use, since it might make it more difficult for your hand to grasp/twist it.


Not an issue in my opinion. Yes there is less metal to hold on to, but absolutely doable. Even if two filters get stuck together a little but, I just wiggle them back and forth a few times until they magically come loose. I never needed more grip, nor filter wrenches.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2013)

entlassen said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The F-Pro CPL is 7mm thick, the Slim is 5mm thick, and the XS-Pro is only 4mm thick.
> ...



Weird...but true. Also, FWIW while almost all B+W mounts including the F-Pro and XS-Pro CPL are brass, the Slim CPL is aluminum (they say 'for manufacturing reasons,' whatever that means). Brass is less prone to getting stuck. If I ever need to replace a CPL, I'll get the XS-Pro version - but I don't see the need to swap unless I break/lose one of my existing CPLs.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> entlassen said:
> 
> 
> > I see this warning in the item description for (A) on B&H's site:
> ...


+1


----------

