# Filters - Help!



## wanderingwolf (Dec 30, 2011)

I am planning on buying a 70-200 f2.8 II, 16-35 f2.8 II, 50mm f1.4, 24-105 f4 and 24-70 f2.8 (I won't buy both lenses, but just haven't picked between the 24-105/24-70 yet), but I've read that I need special filters for each one. I looked on B&H and there are a ton of different filters I can buy. I've heard that the B&H ones are the best...but there are a couple different varieties and I'm not clear on the differences between each. Does anyone have any recommendations on which ones I should purchase, or avoid? I am mainly interested in doing sports, portrait, nature, and wedding photography....however, if there are other different filters I should buy to add a more artistic flare, I would be open to those as well. 

Thanks!


----------



## Zuuyi (Dec 30, 2011)

I'm just marking this topic because I'm also interested in filters.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 30, 2011)

this thread covered it pretty extensively quite recently
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2413.0.html

start reading there 

also if you get all those lenses i would not bother with the 24-70 f2.8 as all the other lenses cover what it does and then some. If you are using a FF body say 5DII you would be better off putting the money saved from a 24-70 into the new 7D2 when it comes out and have 2 bodys especially needed for weddings you can then have the 16-35 on the crop (effective coverage 25mm to 56mm) And the 70-200 on the FF then you have it all covered at f2.8 with awesome glass. Thats just my thoughts on the process anyway


----------



## PeterJ (Dec 30, 2011)

Once you've read a few threads like that and worked out what kind of filters you want the only remaining thing to consider is the size. All your lenses need a 77mm filter, apart from the 16-35 f2.8 II which needs a larger 82mm filter. If you're just looking for protection and weather sealing most people stick with a UV filter, even though as I understand it most DSLR cameras aren't very sensitive to UV so it doesn't make much difference to the image.

That's probably why the B&H list looks so bewildering, there's around half a dozen common filter sizes so you could start by searching for 77mm filters to narrow things down a bit and and then look around at what particular kinds of filters achieve. Circular polarizing and ND (neutral density) are worth taking a look into, but unlike a UV filter aren't something you'd leave on all the time.

Edit - I missed the 50mm f1.4, that's a 58mm filter size.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 30, 2011)

I was in your situation few months ago, since I started buying some "L" lenses. I asked the same question and took great advices from CRs members. I ended up with 3 B+W filters. 

For me...I like B+W - 77mm #007M Protection Clear MRC (Multi-Resistant Coating) Filter most. Guess what...that was a RIGHT decision. B&W filters are much more solid and *SO CLEAR*.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=B%2BW+-+77mm+%23007M+Protection+Clear+MRC+%28Multi-Resistant+Coating%29+Filter&N=0&InitialSearch=yes


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 30, 2011)

+1 for B+W filters. They are the best.


----------



## sammy (Dec 30, 2011)

+2 for B+W. I use their UV filters, I hadn't heard of the clear filter before but will take a look for my next lens purchase.


----------



## RC (Dec 30, 2011)

All my lens have B&W UV filters. They are always on my lens for simply lens protection (obviously they come off if I'm using a ND or polarizer). I realize I'm probably in the minority here. Also, in the case of my 16-35, its to complete the weather sealing. Whatever you do, don't skimp on filters--a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.


----------



## m3tek44 (Dec 30, 2011)

+3 B+W filters. All my lens has B+W filter on them and you can see which lens I have..... They are smooth as silk. Only downside is they are little more $$ but I personally think you get what you pay for. 

Good luck!


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 30, 2011)

Just be sure you get the right B+W filter... remember they have the low end $20-30 UV filters as well as mid grade and high end... I'll let you guys debate to you're blue in the face the effects and different effects a single UV filter does and if it really is only good for protection only (especially in the digital age)... I'd gander perhaps the top of the line Hoya's and Tiffens and B+W's would be pretty damn close, but it's the low end and the plethora of low end's that give each a bad name...


----------



## Mendolera (Dec 30, 2011)

+4 fow B+W.. not only is the glass and coatings better quality but even the threading onto the canon lens seem that much better..

That being said i have a Tiffen CP for my 24-105 and its very nice


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Dec 30, 2011)

just ordered the 70-200mm f2.8 is yesterday and i ordered the 77mm B+W UV protective filter MRC.

(and copying and pasting what i said on a different filter thread -not the one linked in this thread)

When I first got into photography, I tried to research as much as I could and one thing was filters. I read about Tiffen, to Hoya to B+W and pricy Heliopan. In the end I went with B+W because I didn't want to compromise the image quality or budget any more than I needed to. I didn't go with Hoya because I read that they were harder to clean and their aluminum ring sometimes make it hard to take on and off. B+W and I think Heliopan use brass rings.

But no matter what filter you get, make sure you it has multi-coating. B+W has both non multi-coated and multi-coated. double check! (almost made this mistake)

and the only reason i took uv over the clear protective filter was because UV was cheaper.


----------



## RC (Dec 30, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Just be sure you get the right B+W filter... remember they have the low end $20-30 UV filters as well as mid grade and high end....



Good point, B&W MRC 010M

http://www.amazon.com/77mm-Clear-Haze-Multi-Resistant-Coating/dp/B0000BZLBQ/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3SW0O1B96GVII&colid=2HR5MX1GAD73F

https://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=57



> ...I'd recommend a B+W MRC or Nano coat...



Thank N.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2011)

I use B+W MRC UV filters on all of my lenses.


----------



## JR (Dec 30, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I use B+W MRC UV filters on all of my lenses.



+1. You cant go wrong with B+W filters.


----------



## waving_odd (Dec 30, 2011)

B+W XS-Pro is the best!


----------



## Peerke (Dec 30, 2011)

For protection, I only use the hood that comes with the L-lens. Other filters are circ pol from B+W and some high tech 6x4 ND and ND grad filters.

I know the discussion of using clear or UV filter for protection, or not, like me, but be aware that filters are much appreciated by the sales people. :


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 30, 2011)

sammy said:


> +2 for B+W. I use their UV filters, I hadn't heard of the clear filter before but will take a look for my next lens purchase.



I think you going to like it....if not, you can always switch back to UV 

Dylan


----------



## archangelrichard (Dec 31, 2011)

Branding, in general, is hype. (Ira) Tiffen, Hoya, B + W. (even Nikon and Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Chromofilter, Cokin (Cokinlight), Asanuma, Tamron, Toshiba, etc.); are top-level; Quantaray, Kenko, Kalt, Sunpak, Lynncrest, Spectrastar, Rolev, Vivitar, Coastar, Massa, Kalimar, Spiralite, etc are second tier brands - brands who sometimes make filters for the top tier as well as their own brands -- so the brand doesn't mean what people here want to think it means

Don't be fooled by fanboys, which is what brand followers tend to be - get what you need, want

I always use a UV filter or a daylight filter on all cameras I use and suggest to students to do the same in my classes - it is tyhe most effective protection you can buy when the lens cap is off and in general any new filter will be clear.

Look into graduated neutral density AND graduated colors (to darken the sky, etc.); cross filters (they basically look as if there is a screen in the filter and they change pinpoint light sources into 4, 6, 8 pointed stares of light, etc.); regular ND, Circular Polarizing filters (regular polarizing filters affect your autofocus and metering)

avoid triangle, etc prismatic filters with digital (they cause so much rainbow effects that your pictures are nearly indistinguishable - works with film but not digital)

Look into diopters (Macro +1, +2, +10) if you are wanting to take macro pics with a fixed prime, hand held, in the field

Look at Cokin flat filters with holder if you really really want to get creative

Most of all PLAY with the filters and see what they do

NOTE: you can buy filters used - in my small area we have two stores that buy and sell cameras and outfits and sometimes they sell filters as low as $1 each, often $3 each - great for testing / learning on (for my classes I bring in a box of 100 or so various filters and let the students play with different ones - I do warn them that zoom lenses should not have more than 1 filter at a time while primes having fewer elements can use 2 to 3 with acceptable results)


----------



## seacritter (Dec 31, 2011)

I was a B+W (Schneider Optics) fan and used them exclusively for decades. I still own a B+W KSM filter and it is great. But... Marumi Super DHG Circular Polarizer is even better and half the price of the KSM. I saw an article that tested and rated filters and saw that the Marumi Super DHG got the highest marks. I decided to try one and have slowly replaced all of my circular polarizers.


----------



## photophreek (Dec 31, 2011)

+1 for the Marumi Super DHG Circular Polarizer filters and use them on all my lenses. However, I don't use any other filter only the lens hood for protection. Never really understood the need for a UV filter in digital photography (film yes).


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 31, 2011)

I have B+W UV as well as Hoya Pro1 Digital and the high end kenko Zeta, there is no noticable difference between them in use the B+W are generally more expensive though


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 3, 2012)

wanderingwolf said:


> I've heard that the B&H ones are the best.



B&H is a camera store's name, whereas B+W is a filter maker. I guess you meant the latter?

Like what others say, I love B+W. I love their XS-Pro series even more for its slim profile and front thread.

BTW, has anyone used B+W's own Vari-ND? How do you like it?

https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1838&IID=9137


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 1, 2012)

waving_odd said:


> B+W XS-Pro is the best!



I am considering the XS-Pro's for my 24-105, 135L, 85/1.8 - do the Canon lens caps work well on these filters?

Also, I have a B+W UV 010 67mm on my 70-200/f4/IS but I don't think it is MRC - should I just get one for this too?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2012)

The MRC makes it easier to clean. 

No need for XS-Pro on those lenses, the standard F-Pro is fine. Maybe on the 24-105, but only if you plan to stack a CPL on it, else there's no worry about vignetting.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The MRC makes it easier to clean.
> 
> No need for XS-Pro on those lenses, the standard F-Pro is fine. Maybe on the 24-105, but only if you plan to stack a CPL on it, else there's no worry about vignetting.



Thanks Neuro. 
I have them lined up through a guy I know who used to import them - they are a good price. That said, I have heard that Canon caps may be problematic on the XS-Pro line, does anyone have any experience with this?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2012)

The Canon caps fit fine on the XS-Pro. I have XS-Pro filters on my 17-55mm, 16-35mm II, and 24-105mm (yes, I said it's not needed, but the 16-35 uses 82mm filters, and it replaced an EF-S 10-22mm as my UWA zoom when I got a 5DII, so I just used the 77mm XS-Pro on my next-widest lens using that diameter).


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 1, 2012)

Thanks again. I just spotted a post on DPReview that says " I'd recommend the clear over a UV though if you're using it as a protection filter, as there is a subtle IQ impact."
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=36878300

I have had a Hoya Super Pro1 77mm UV(10) on my 17-55 for years and recently on my 24-105 and I don't notice a IQ difference, although I have never tested IQ in a controlled setting between no filter and filter.

Any thoughts on Clear vs. UV?

BTW, this was the post that mentioned the caps may not fit well, although my Hoya mentioned has never had an issue wit the 77mm cap.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=37554913


----------



## Flake (Apr 1, 2012)

The best filters money can buy are Lee they're the brand that all the top landscape photographers use ( http://www.leefilters.com/ ). Then there is the Hitech brand which are probably as good http://www.formatt.co.uk/default.aspx Nothing else even comes close when you need the very best, but expect to pay for either of them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> Thanks again. I just spotted a post on DPReview that says " I'd recommend the clear over a UV though if you're using it as a protection filter, as there is a subtle IQ impact."
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=36878300



I think _reading_ DPR forum posts has a not-so-subtle negative IQ impact - and in this case IQ does not refer to image quality. Sometimes it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff over there, to the point where finding the correct facts is like a Where's Waldo hunt. 

Case in point, the many people who stated with absolute certainty (to the point of insulting others, also the norm over there) that for B+W filters, MRC = multicoating. For the record, it doesn't - it's the scratch/dirt resisting surface coat; all their MRC filters are _also_ multicoated, but they do make multicoated filters without the MRC coating. 



Jamesy said:


> Any thoughts on Clear vs. UV?



For modern dSLRs, there's no meaningful difference. Note that the references to the contrary in the DPR post are about old CCD-based cameras. I've personally tested my 5DII and found no appreciable sensitivity to 280nm or 350nm light. Yes, there could be some sensitivity just under 400nm, but it's not going to have a significant image impact. Similarly, even the best multicoated filters result in the loss of ~1% of light - a measurable impact, yes, but not a meaningful one. 

So, get whichever is cheaper or more available - for B+W, that's usually UV instead of clear, but I've seen some Hoya clear filters cheaper than their UV equivalent. 

In terms of quality, the B+W MRC and Hoya S-HMC and higher are optically similar. The B+W is easier to clean, as is the Hoya HD, compared to the other Hoyas. Personally, I have B+W MRC UV filters on all my lenses. 

As for an optical impact, there is one - increased susceptibility to flare. That's true with even the best filters (and again, I've personally tested this with the 24-105 and 70-200 II); low quality filters cause additional problems.


----------



## Dan Jurak (Apr 1, 2012)

The best landscape photographers use filters? Hardly. Do a Google on Marc Adamus who in my mind is probably the premiere landscape shooter in North America. He posted recently that HE DOESN'T use filters. 

To prove my point about the sincerity of my post, I am selling a set of Lee filters, yeah, the high quality ones and an adapter kit. Check out my website or do a google for Kijiji in Edmonton.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 1, 2012)

Thanks for the input. have had no issues with my non MRC B+W UV and my Hoya Super Pro1 UV, so I will likely stick with those. I only use them to provide a better weather/dust seal and to protect the front element, I am not looking to improve IQ by using a filter.

On my 85, I have a cheap piece of glass that came with it, in most cases I unscrew it and leave it in the bag instead of shooting through it, although now I am going to re-tool all my filters so I thought I should do a bit of research prior to dropping the coin.

Thank you again!


----------



## thure1982 (Apr 1, 2012)

handsomerob said:


> +1 for B+W filters. They are the best.



Second that, those are amazing, and you see the clarity when you hold it next to a cheaper version.

I also recommend Kenko. Really good. At least the PRO1D that I have used.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 1, 2012)

thure1982 said:


> handsomerob said:
> 
> 
> > +1 for B+W filters. They are the best.
> ...


Kenko and Hoya are the same company - I think it all depends on where you buy them. It is also the same company as Tokina apparently.

I have used a Hoya Super Pro1 UV for years on my primary 17-55 walkaround and it is very good.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 12, 2012)

So I just received my order of B+W XS-Pro MRC UV filters for my 24-105, 135L and 85/1.8. For those interested, the Canon OEM Ultrasonic lens cap fits but there there is a 1mm gap between the filter and the lens cap. It locks on but it is not a 100% snug fit like my thin Hoya Pro1 UV filter that I have had on my 17-55 for years.

Have any of you had any issues with caps falling off of XS-Pro filters in the past?


----------



## Orion (Apr 13, 2012)

I just recieved my Singh-ray vari ND duo filter!
http://www.singh-ray.com/varinduo.html

I can;t wait to use it in Iceland this summer/fall. . . maybe in the wedding shoot this april too!


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 13, 2012)

Here is test result: http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html as part of a review containing testing procedure. For comparison prices in PLN (1$=3PLN).


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 13, 2012)

Dan Jurak said:


> The best landscape photographers use filters? Hardly. Do a Google on Marc Adamus who in my mind is probably the premiere landscape shooter in North America. He posted recently that HE DOESN'T use filters.
> 
> To prove my point about the sincerity of my post, I am selling a set of Lee filters, yeah, the high quality ones and an adapter kit. Check out my website or do a google for Kijiji in Edmonton.



That's because his shots look HDR. I can tell by the ones with the sun.

To get pics like that you can either use filters or do HDR, that's just about it. There is no other way to get that sort of range, unless ther are amazing cameras out there that I don't know about.

And yes, many of the best landscape photographers do use filters, because if you want to get good images without tons of post and HDRs it's the joy way you can do it.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 13, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> thure1982 said:
> 
> 
> > handsomerob said:
> ...


At the end of this video you can see the gap I am talking about.
B+W XS-PRO UV FILTER

Does anyone have issues with vignetting on a 24-105 with an B+W 77mm MRC UV 010 F-Pro?


----------



## Orion (Apr 13, 2012)

haha I just needed to comment on the "no filters" remark . . . .

try taking a long exposure of the ocean or a landscape with a brighter sky than the foreground, and see what hapopens to the sky! To combat that, you would have to create multiple exposures and then combine themm in PS. Instead, using a gradient filter for the sky of 1-2 stops, which you can even handhold flush in front of the lens, will allow you to do all that work with one click of the shutter. It's the "in camera" way to do things professionally for quality results. HDR is a whole other matter usingt multiple exposures and then working in post with the settings you want to achiewve a certain look . . . hopefully it's not that new "pro photographer/artist," pastel, oversaturated look


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 13, 2012)

Orion said:


> haha I just needed to comment on the "no filters" remark . . . .
> 
> try taking a long exposure of the ocean or a landscape with a brighter sky than the foreground, and see what hapopens to the sky! To combat that, you would have to create multiple exposures and then combine themm in PS. Instead, using a gradient filter for the sky of 1-2 stops, which you can even handhold flush in front of the lens, will allow you to do all that work with one click of the shutter. It's the "in camera" way to do things professionally for quality results. HDR is a whole other matter usingt multiple exposures and then working in post with the settings you want to achiewve a certain look . . . hopefully it's not that new "pro photographer/artist," pastel, oversaturated look


UV filter no unless in a bad enviroment.polarisers, nd, nd grads, yeah for sure


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> Does anyone have issues with vignetting on a 24-105 with an B+W 77mm MRC UV 010 F-Pro?


No issues there. My test results below (click for details) show that you don't see an increase in optical vignetting until you stack _two_ F-Pro filters on a 24-105mm.







scrappydog said:


> I forgot to mention that these shots were taken with a 60D, which has a crop sensor. A FF camera may have vignetting not evident in my shots.


It's really hard to get an EF lens to vignette on an APS-C camera...



Jamesy said:


> ...the Canon OEM Ultrasonic lens cap fits but there there is a 1mm gap between the filter and the lens cap.
> Have any of you had any issues with caps falling off of XS-Pro filters in the past?


I don't find the gap to be an issue - I've never had a lens cap knocked off because of it. Sorry I didn't mention the gap previously, didn't think it was an issue. The gap I see is less than 1mm, maybe 0.75mm - and in fact, when I look it seems there's a small gap with the F-pro mount, too (not quite as wide). Here's what I mean (77mm filters and a Canon 77mm Ultrasonic cap):


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have issues with vignetting on a 24-105 with an B+W 77mm MRC UV 010 F-Pro?
> ...


Neuro, thank you!

As usual, you are a mountain of information! The gap is indeed .75mm or so and I only tried the cap on the filter thus far, I have not even mounted them on the lens yet. I got a deal on three XS-Pro filters and F-Pro's were not an option from this seller.

My Hoya Pro1 UV, which is equally as slim as the XS-Pro's, allow the Canon caps to fit snug - which is what prompted my post about the gap in the first place. I will mount them with confidence that I likely won't loose the caps.


----------

