# Filters



## nairfotografia (Jul 19, 2012)

I am looking for a 82 mm size UV, CPL, ND (Grad) filter to purchase . i have always used B+W filters and have been very happy with it. What do you all recommend..


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 19, 2012)

nairfotografia said:


> I am looking for a 82 mm size UV, CPL, ND (Grad) filter to purchase . i have always used B+W filters and have been very happy with it. What do you all recommend..



Staying with B+W.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 19, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> nairfotografia said:
> 
> 
> > I am looking for a 82 mm size UV, CPL, ND (Grad) filter to purchase . i have always used B+W filters and have been very happy with it. What do you all recommend..
> ...


+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2012)

Another vote for B+W. Except...you mention grad ND, and for that I'd skip round filters - that forces you to have the horizon in the middle, and compositionally that's rarely where you want it. Schneider Optics (parent company of B+W) makes excellent rectangular glass grad NDs in their MPTV (motion picture / tv) line, or look at Lee resin filters. You can either get a rectangular holder, or just handhold them.


----------



## nairfotografia (Jul 19, 2012)

Thanks gentlemen for the valuable inputs.

Any feedbacks on Singhray filters..?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2012)

nairfotografia said:


> Any feedbacks on Singhray filters..?



They have a good reputation, and lots of people swear by them. While their filters are good, I am not a fan of their marketing strategies. For example, in their FAQs they state that their filters are not multicoated, because their testing has shown that multicoating is a disadvantage. They don't state what that disadvantage is, but the only one I can think of is that the extra steps required in production will reduce their profits.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> nairfotografia said:
> 
> 
> > Any feedbacks on Singhray filters..?
> ...



I agree with you on that one. All the world's leading manufacturers coat their lenses and filters. Take a look at any of the best optical glass out there...it's coated.


----------



## nairfotografia (Jul 19, 2012)

plus the 400$ price tag on their filters.. ;D

thanks for the insight gentlemen..


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 19, 2012)

nairfotografia said:


> plus the 400$ price tag on their filters.. ;D
> 
> thanks for the insight gentlemen..



I know, but you get what you pay for (usually).


----------



## nairfotografia (Jul 23, 2012)

true that


----------



## Otter (Jul 26, 2012)

nairfotografia said:


> Thanks gentlemen for the valuable inputs.
> 
> Any feedbacks on Singhray filters..?



They make a high quality product. I have heard of some color casting issues and people preferring Lee over Singhray for results as well as price. They do make a nice reverse ND filter for sunsets.
Seeing as you already have B+W, if you are missing a certain ND in your collection, maybe try a different company and see if you notice a distinct difference and then make a decession. Better yet, if you know a friend who has one or there is a local camera shop that sells them, do a comparison.


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 28, 2012)

The Singh Ray reverse grad is very useful and something that Lee can't match. It is the one filter I miss after switching from Cokin P mount to Lee. I never had any colour cast problems and pricewise, when the exchange rate between pound and dollar was good, they were on a par, although they are probably now more expensive.


----------



## CharlieB (Jul 29, 2012)

B+W is among the best. Heliopan... very good. I'm even fairly fond of the Hoya HMC series.

Tiffen.... on the other hand, never did much for me, and unfortunately their uncoated filters were rebadged "CANON" at one time.


----------



## Vonbon (Jul 30, 2012)

I use Tiffen Digital HT UV. From my opinion, it's better than B+W XS-Pro beacause sometime XS-Pro creates yellowish image. I never use lower grad F-Pro or newer XS-Pro with nano coating. 

The filter i highly regard is Hoya Super Quality Pro1. Black box with gold text.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > nairfotografia said:
> ...



+2


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jul 30, 2012)

first, i am not sure as if i see different from filters  and i currently own Hoya and B+W filters. According to my research, Hoya HMC UV(0) should be the choice. However, I love the solid feel of B+W filters.

Ref: http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test_Introduction.html


----------



## M.ST (Jul 30, 2012)

Buy a B+W AUC Zirkular-Polfilter Käsemann with MRC-sealing

It delivers a perfect picture quality.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jul 30, 2012)

I agree with Razor2012.


----------



## DigitalDivide (Jul 30, 2012)

Is this for use with the 16-35mm f/2.8L II? The 82mm diameter makes me suspect so, and there are a few additional considerations when using a CP on a wide angle lens. First, you may need to use a thin profile filter in the case of the CP, as a standard type may vignette at the wide end - especially if stacked with a second filter such as a UV. And secondly CPs can be problematic with ultra-wide lenses, since the polarization varies across the wide angle of view and can make skies look patchy and uneven. There was a good thread discussing this recently:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8112.0



M.ST said:


> Buy a B+W AUC Zirkular-Polfilter Käsemann with MRC-sealing
> 
> It delivers a perfect picture quality.



I own the B&W BWKCPMCS77 slim 77 mm Kaesemann MRC CP, which I purchased a few months ago. I love B&W filters and use them on all my lenses, but I can't say I recommend this model. It _is _very thin and I don't get any vignetting on my 17-40mm f/4L provided I don't stack filters (when stacked with an F-Pro UV I get just a touch of vignetting at 17mm on my 5D2). But the thinness has its disadvantages. It makes the control ring difficult to adjust because there is not much to grab onto, particularly if a lens hood is fitted. It also means that a conventional lens cap does not work since there are no internal filter threads. The supplied special cap invariably falls off when I put the lens in my bag, making it essentially useless.

These complaints are repeated over and over in the B&H user reviews, but I could live with them as tradeoffs for the lack of vignetting. However, while using this filter in cold weather at Bryce Canyon NP in Utah, it frequently became jammed on my UV filter. I think this is because, unlike my other B&W filters which are brass and don't get stuck, this CP is made of steel - presumably brass is too soft to use for a thin profile filter. Finally it jammed permanently, and nothing I have tried has succeeded in freeing it. I was planning on selling it and going with a grad ND setup instead, but I can't do that until I can separate it. Very disappointing from an otherwise excellent brand...

Any advice on separating jammed filters would be much appreciated  I don't think it is cross-threaded, but filter wrenches don't work, even when used with elastic bands for better grip.


----------



## PeterJ (Jul 31, 2012)

DigitalDivide said:


> Any advice on separating jammed filters would be much appreciated  I don't think it is cross-threaded, but filter wrenches don't work, even when used with elastic bands for better grip.


Can't say I've ever had the problem but maybe try popping in the oven at something fairly low like 80C for a while and see how it goes? It sounds like different expansion rates in the opposite direction caused your problem.


----------



## M.ST (Jul 31, 2012)

Sorry for my first short text. 

I mean, buy a B+W AUC Zirkular-Polfilter Käsemann with MRC-sealing (not the slim version) for the new EF 24-70 II. (I hate the nine lens blades, because you get stars from small light sources at f/16 or f/22 with eighteen spouts. That looks very ugly.)

Most of the polfilters don´t perform very well with ultra wide angle lenses. Your need the slim version for ultra wide angle lenses, but they have not the effect as with lenses from 24 mm up.

If you use a Lee-filter-holder you are more flexible. You can screw in polfilters, nd- und gnd-filters.


----------



## kirillica (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm looking for the best UV (+IR) filter for my new 16-35 lens and have no idea what to choose:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ipp=100&sts=ma&Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&N=35&srtclk=sort&Ntt=uv+82mm+filter

I've used Hoya for other lens and it's OK. I've never heard of Heliopan. Is their price/performance ratio better than Hoya?

Currently it looks like this is the best option:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/857379-REG/Hoya_A82UVIR_82_mm_UV_and.html 
Am I right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2012)

kirillica said:


> Currently it looks like this is the best option:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/857379-REG/Hoya_A82UVIR_82_mm_UV_and.html



From the product description: "_When using color CCD or CMOS camera sensors, which are extremely susceptible to UV and IR rays..._" Really?!?  First time I've heard that... Technically, I suppose it's true...the sensor itself is quite sensitive to IR, although much less so to UV. But...there are two IR cut filters in front of the sensor, which I presume do the job they're supposed to, and I've personally tested UV sensitivity of a 5DII and found it to be basically zero.

Also, although B&H doesn't indicate it, searching the manufacturer number (A82UVIR) elsewhere indicates the filter is part of the HMC line, which isn't the best from Hoya, optically. The Super HMC, Pro1, and HD lines are the ones I'd look at from Hoya, and those are equivalent to the B+W MRC optically, although of them all, the B+W and the Hoya HD are easier to clean than the others.

Heliopan has a good reputation, but I have no personal experience.

Personally, I use an XS-Pro 82mm B+W MRC UV on my 16-35 II. I'm not sure what the mount thickness of the Hoya you linked is, but according to my testing, anything over 5mm thick may vignette on the 16-35L II (on FF).


----------



## kirillica (Jul 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I use an XS-Pro 82mm B+W MRC UV on my 16-35 II. I'm not sure what the mount thickness of the Hoya you linked is, but according to my testing, anything over 5mm thick may vignette on the 16-35L II (on FF).



well, if we take into account list mentioned (on B&H), that what would be your choice?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2012)

Personally, I'd get this one. As I stated, optically there's little to distinguish the top end filters (B+W MRC/Nano, Hoya Pro1/HD, etc.), but I do sometimes stack a CPL or ND on the UV if I'm in a hurry, and the brass rings of the B+Ws are less prone to binding up when stacking filters.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jul 31, 2012)

nairfotografia said:


> I am looking for a 82 mm size UV, CPL, ND (Grad) filter to purchase . i have always used B+W filters and have been very happy with it. What do you all recommend..



Here's another happy B+W user for anything that screws on/is round. For grad filters etc I've been using standard Cokin filters since the very beginning on 35mm film. They've become a little difficult to get at times but I find them more than sufficient and quite affordable.


----------



## DigitalDivide (Jul 31, 2012)

PeterJ said:


> Can't say I've ever had the problem but maybe try popping in the oven at something fairly low like 80C for a while and see how it goes? It sounds like different expansion rates in the opposite direction caused your problem.



Thanks, that may be worth a try. I suspect you are right that the problem is caused by different rates of expansion. The jamming happened when I was jumping in and out of a heated vehicle in freezing temperatures, so the filters were presumably expanding and contracting. I tried letting them sit in my freezer for a while with no success, so maybe heat will work. At least the filters are not stuck on the lens, I wouldn't want to put that in the oven! 

I should probably look up rates of expansion for steel and brass...


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > Currently it looks like this is the best option:
> ...



In the past I used the B+W MRC Slims, but now just use the XS-Pro MRC Nano. I also have the UV on my 16-35II and ordered the XS-Pro Kaesemann KSM CPL MRC Nano. These are great filters...period.


----------



## csli (Aug 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > Currently it looks like this is the best option:
> ...



I just bought the 16 - 35mm L II with the B+W Slim-Line Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M). Is this a good filter to go with the lens?

Thanks,


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2012)

I'm not a fan of the slim filters because they lack a front thread, meaning pinch caps (e.g. the one that comes with the lens) don't work, and you need to use the slip-on cap that comes with the slim filter. Instead, I prefer the XS-Pro mount - it's only 0.4mm thicker than the Slim, and has front threads.


----------



## csli (Aug 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm not a fan of the slim filters because they lack a front thread, meaning pinch caps (e.g. the one that comes with the lens) don't work, and you need to use the slip-on cap that comes with the slim filter. Instead, I prefer the XS-Pro mount - it's only 0.4mm thicker than the Slim, and has front threads.



OK Thanks! With the XS-Pro clear, do I still need the XS-Pro UV Nano on top of it if it is shooting outside?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2012)

No - pick UV or clear, for a dSLR there's no difference (UV helped with film, CMOS sensors are basically insensitive to UV).


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> No - pick UV or clear, for a dSLR there's no difference (UV helped with film, CMOS sensors are basically insensitive to UV).



+1, whichever is less expensive.


----------



## csli (Aug 2, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > kirillica said:
> ...



Hi Razor,
Do you have the XS-pro UV on it all the time, indoor and out?

Thanks,


----------



## csli (Aug 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> No - pick UV or clear, for a dSLR there's no difference (UV helped with film, CMOS sensors are basically insensitive to UV).



With the XS-Pro on, can you still put on the lens hood for 16 - 35mm L II? I assume you have that awesome lens.

Thanks,


----------



## csli (Aug 2, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > No - pick UV or clear, for a dSLR there's no difference (UV helped with film, CMOS sensors are basically insensitive to UV).
> ...



The XS-Pro clear is cheaper than the UV. You thought it should be opposite. Anyway, I will return my slim-line and pick up a XS-Pro.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 2, 2012)

csli said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Hi csli, yes I do, never take it off.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 2, 2012)

csli said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > No - pick UV or clear, for a dSLR there's no difference (UV helped with film, CMOS sensors are basically insensitive to UV).
> ...



Yes, with the XS-Pro on you can still attach the hood. I just picked up the 16-35II, pretty sweet lens.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 2, 2012)

csli said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



No, I didn't say which would be cheaper, I said pick whichever one is cheaper. Some online merchants only carry one or the other and their prices might be lower than brick-and-mortar stores that carry both.


----------



## csli (Aug 2, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> csli said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...


----------



## rahkshi007 (Aug 2, 2012)

Hi, i would like to ask what is the different between B+W F-Pro and B+W XS-Pro.
i only know that XS-PRO has tinner frame. Are Both have the same image quality and both has coating which easy to clean ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2012)

rahkshi007 said:


> Hi, i would like to ask what is the different between B+W F-Pro and B+W XS-Pro.
> i only know that XS-PRO has tinner frame. Are Both have the same image quality and both has coating which easy to clean ?



F-Pro vs. XS-Pro refers only to the mount. F-Pro is 5mm thick (except CPL), XS-Pro is 3.4mm thick. The coating is identified by the designation of MRC (multi-resistant coating), Nano (MRC with slightly greater light transmission), or the lack of such a designation (which means single coated or uncoated).


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 2, 2012)

Also the Nano coating is supposed to produce a better beading effect with water and make it easier to clean.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> rahkshi007 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, i would like to ask what is the different between B+W F-Pro and B+W XS-Pro.
> ...



The XS-Pros might be nanocoated by default.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 2, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rahkshi007 said:
> ...



I think so, Nano isn't an option and only comes with XS-Pro filters.


----------



## Vonbon (Aug 3, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Some store still have plenty of older xs-pro without nano coating. They are slightly cheaper and packed in older light blue box. The newer ones would be black box.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 3, 2012)

Vonbon said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Oh ok, I've just seen the newer black boxes.


----------

