# Canon brand UV and Circ. Polarizing filters



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 23, 2014)

I can't find a lot of information online about these so far. I'm looking to get 2 77mm UV filters to protect my lenses and one circular polarizer.

The Canon brand filters are more expensive than the other filters I see in my catalogs.

Are they worth it?


----------



## Click (Aug 23, 2014)

Go with B+W


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2014)

Get B+W. 

The only Canon filter you should buy is the drop-in CPL for the supertele lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 24, 2014)

I bought a Canon UV filter several years ago for my 17-55mm lens. I saw no issues, and used it for 3 or 4 years before selling it. The filter did what I wanted, there was no dust in the lens even after all that time.

I've bought B+W or Helicon since then, but I seldom use them for most of my shots.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 24, 2014)

So, Click and neuroanatomist, why do you recommend B+W over the Canon brand filters?

Mt Spokane Photography, why did you switch to non Canon brand?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against buying B+W or other brands, I'm just curious why the seeming recommendation to avoid Canon filters except when unavoidable. Price? Quality? If you could elaborate I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2014)

Canon filters used to be rebranded low-end filters OEM'd by Tiffen. I don't think Canon makes their own today, but they may be better quality. 

B+W come out tops in testing, and they're a reputable brand.


----------



## timmy_650 (Aug 24, 2014)

I have an Older 77mm Canon Circle Polarizing filter and I like it. I got it at a second hand store for $15 and it is worth that but I looked once and it was like $200 but I don't think it is worth that.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 24, 2014)

I had the same question a while back. This may help your decision.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10215.msg183844#msg183844


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 25, 2014)

Yikes, run! Okay not really, but the one I got for free with a lens was a piece of crap. The glass rotated inside the frame, it was hard to clean, and was a flare magnet. Save your money for B+W or Hoya's top couple of lines.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 26, 2014)

What is the difference between the various types of filters offered by B+W? The XS-Pro vs the F-Pro.. etc. I don't see on the Schneider Optics page a comparison of the details of each. I found a thread online that claimed the F-Pro was made of brass whereas the XS-Pro wasn't, but according to Amazon et. al. the XS-Pro is indeed made of brass.

I ask because between this thread, and this thread, I've gotten recommendations to go down the B+W route for filters. I'm just confused though between their F-Pro, and XS-Pro filters, and any other types. Did I miss on the Schneider Optics site where they explain the differences?

I've learned through these two threads that I should pass on UV filters and just get coated clear filters for protection. I'll also be getting a polarizer that I can use hopefully on both the 24-105 and the 70-200 given that they both take 77mm. I'm unsure though if that will work since the 24-105 goes down below 35mm and I've heard that below 35mm FL, you need a thin polarizer (or alternatively you shouldn't use one at all).

Any help will be appreciated. I'm going to post this on the other thread too since I've inadvertently scattered my questions across 2 threads.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> What is the difference between the various types of filters offered by B+W?



https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/faq/bw.htm#qu26


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 26, 2014)

Thank you! I couldn't for the life of me find that! 

It was driving me nuts.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 26, 2014)

So thanks again for the link. It seems to suggest that both the F-Pro and the XS-Pro work now down to 24mm without causing trouble?

Why does the F-Pro cause trouble for the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS? I clearly have a lot to learn still.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> So thanks again for the link. It seems to suggest that both the F-Pro and the XS-Pro work now down to 24mm without causing trouble?
> 
> Why does the F-Pro cause trouble for the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS? I clearly have a lot to learn still.



Those focal lengths are guidelines, it really depends on the lens. The 16-35/2.8 II @ 16mm f/2.8 can take an F-Pro with no extra vignetting. The 35/1.4L can take three stacked F-Pro filters with no extra vignetting. The 70-200 II has some extra vignetting with just one F-Pro – that one surprised me, I had one on there, someone on this forum reported it and I tested mine...and switched to XS-Pro. In retrospect, the MkII versions of the other 'f/2.8 zoom holy trinity' (16-35/2.8L, 24-70/2.8L) both got major optical boosts with the MkII version, and a switch from 77mm to 82mm filters. The 70-200/2.8 IS got better IQ with the same 77mm filter, and I suspect Canon cut it close to the edge in terms of optical design.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > So thanks again for the link. It seems to suggest that both the F-Pro and the XS-Pro work now down to 24mm without causing trouble?
> ...



So, does the same apply to a polarizing filter? Should I be using an XS-Pro for the Circ. Polarizer on the 70-200?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2014)

I'd go with an XS-Pro CPL. I have Slim Käsemann CPLs in 77mm and 82mm, the XS-Pro is actually 1mm thinner. I bought my CPLs before the XS-Pro versions came out, those are what I'd buy today (but it's not worth it for me to sell the Slims and buy the XS-Pro).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 27, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> So, Click and neuroanatomist, why do you recommend B+W over the Canon brand filters?
> 
> Mt Spokane Photography, why did you switch to non Canon brand?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against buying B+W or other brands, I'm just curious why the seeming recommendation to avoid Canon filters except when unavoidable. Price? Quality? If you could elaborate I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks.



I switched to B+W and Helicon based on the many reports from filter users, and saw no bad effects from the Canon filter, it went with the lens when I sold the lens while moving to FF. I also noticed a benefit from leaving filters off the lens when using it in studio, the images seemed clearer with more contrast, but that could be just me reacting to suggestions from others. 

One item that has not been mentioned, is the nasty tendency of the cheap filters made with aluminum rings to gall on aluminum filter threads and become stuck on your lens. Filters using brass rings like the high end models are not going to have galled threads and be semi-permanently stuck to your lens. Brass filter rings do sometimes require use of a filter wrench, but do not require extreme force to remove. The aluminum galling is mostly a issue with aluminum threads on lenses. Canon is switching to plastic on some newer models, I don't know how this will affect filters getting stuck, but its likely a improvement in that regard. For example, the 16-35mm f/4L has plastic filter threads.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd go with an XS-Pro CPL. I have Slim Käsemann CPLs in 77mm and 82mm, the XS-Pro is actually 1mm thinner. I bought my CPLs before the XS-Pro versions came out, those are what I'd buy today (but it's not worth it for me to sell the Slims and buy the XS-Pro).



Maybe I should just make it simple and get XS-Pro for all 3 filters then. With the 24-105 going down to wide'ish angles and already starting with f/4 perhaps it would benefit from a thinner clear filter too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'd go with an XS-Pro CPL. I have Slim Käsemann CPLs in 77mm and 82mm, the XS-Pro is actually 1mm thinner. I bought my CPLs before the XS-Pro versions came out, those are what I'd buy today (but it's not worth it for me to sell the Slims and buy the XS-Pro).
> ...



No need for the 24-105, but maybe if you need that 77mm filter on another lens later...

On the 24-105 you can stack an F-Pro on an XS-Pro with no issue, two F-Pros stacked gives ~1/8-stop extra vignetting. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/5938142014/in/set-72157624587295692


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



For the polarizer, how do you like your XS-Pro Kesemann style CPL w/MRC? I assume yours has the MRC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2014)

The Käsemann CPLs have the MRC coating plus better construction so they don't delaminate. Great filters !


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Käsemann CPLs have the MRC coating plus better construction so they don't delaminate. Great filters !



Sounds like the way to go for a polarizer. I'll have to try harder to spell it correctly when I place an order.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 27, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> What is the difference between the various types of filters offered by B+W? The XS-Pro vs the F-Pro.. etc. I don't see on the Schneider Optics page a comparison of the details of each. I found a thread online that claimed the F-Pro was made of brass whereas the XS-Pro wasn't, but according to Amazon et. al. the XS-Pro is indeed made of brass.
> 
> I ask because between this thread, and this thread, I've gotten recommendations to go down the B+W route for filters. I'm just confused though between their F-Pro, and XS-Pro filters, and any other types. Did I miss on the Schneider Optics site where they explain the differences?
> 
> ...




Get these:
B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 Filter 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/756818-REG/B_W_66_1066111_77mm_XS_Pro_NANO_Clear.html

B+W 77mm Kaesemann XS-Pro Circular Polarizer MRC Nano Filter 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/752975-REG/B_W_1066400_77mm_XS_Pro_Digital_MC.html

XS-Pro = Slim filter with added threads for lens cap/addt'l filters, less light falloff with some lenses than a thick filter
Clear = Neutral, exactly what you want from a protective filter (unlike UV, which can affect color balance adversely)
MRC = Multicoated, better scratch protection and flare resistance than cheaper single coated filters
Nano = Coating that makes filter much easier to clean (almost like Rain-X, water/debris comes right off instead of requiring polishing)
The B+W filters also are made of brass, which binds less than cheaper aluminum filters.

Yes, the initial investment is significantly higher than a cheap filter. But these filters will last longer, be easier to work with, and have less adverse impact on image quality compared to cheaper filters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Clear = Neutral, exactly what you want from a protective filter (*unlike UV, which can affect color balance adversely*)



Can I ask… Do you have empirical evidence for that adverse effect, or are you basing the suggestion on the <5% loss of transmission in a ~25nm region of the spectrum where the sensor is at <20% of its maximum sensitivity?


----------



## xps (Aug 27, 2014)

I am using the

B+W AUC Polfilter Käsemann - zirkular - XS-PRO DIGITAL MRC nano 77mm & 58mm
B+W F-Pro AUC Zirkularpolfilter Käsemann 105 mm x 1 mm - MRC vergütet

and the
Heliopan HT-Polfilter # 8098 - 77 MM & 105 MM High Transm. Circ. Polfilter SLIM SH-PMC

From Hoya the Hoya Polarisationsfilter Cirk. Pro1 Digital 58mm 

The 105mm´s are for the LEE Filterkit. (Bought the Heliopan and got the B+W 1055m cheap from an friend)

Optically I can not see any differences between the B+W and Heliopan in IQ. They are both great filters!
The Heliopan high transmission has an advantage: It does not swallow as much light as the others. It is a little bit brighter than the B+W. So it is an advantage, if you shoot in darker situations.

The Hoya is quite darker. But the IQ is really good.

If you own an good lens, I would buy an high quality filter. Don´t own an expensive Cam & lens and reduce the IQ by using an cheap glass in front of your high-end optical system.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Clear = Neutral, exactly what you want from a protective filter (*unlike UV, which can affect color balance adversely*)
> ...



Basing it on the tech specs and the fact that the manufacturer sells and markets a clear filter that is more neutral than the UV. Also, if the new patented Canon multilayer sensor ever is released (which has a UV layer), would you want to risk having to replace all of your filters for a potential quality gain (since the sensor may not perform as optimally with UV filtered before hitting the sensor) when you could have just bought clear to begin with? Given the relative small cost difference between UV and Clear, I see no reason just to buy Clear in the first place.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I can't find a lot of information online about these so far. I'm looking to get 2 77mm UV filters to protect my lenses and one circular polarizer.
> 
> The Canon brand filters are more expensive than the other filters I see in my catalogs.
> 
> Are they worth it?



No.

I had to buy a Canon CPL once and it was the biggest POS I ever got, it delaminated in a matter of weeks and scratched very easily. Do not buy them.


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Käsemann CPLs have the MRC coating plus better construction so they don't delaminate. Great filters !



The nano coatings that are on some of B+W's filters can't be praised enough in my opinion. They do an outstanding job of repelling dust.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I can't find a lot of information online about these so far. I'm looking to get 2 77mm UV filters to protect my lenses and one circular polarizer.
> ...


Pretty sad that Canon makes such garbage considering what great optics they make. Maybe they should come out with an "L" line of filters


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



I don't think Canon do make them, they might be made for them, but not by them.


----------



## mpphoto (Aug 29, 2014)

I had an issue with a UV filter and a circular polarizing filter at a car show this weekend. I was using the 24-105mm L on a 5D Mk III, with a B+W F-Pro UV filter on it. A car I wanted to photograph had some distracting reflections on it, so I put a Hoya PL-CIR filter onto the UV filter. The polarizing filter was stuck when I went to take it off. I tried several times to get it off, but it wouldn't budge. I ended up shooting the rest of the car show with the polarizing filter on, which was inconvenient because of the loss of light and there was vignetting when zoomed wider than about 35mm. With 20/20 hindsight, I should have taken both filters off and crossed my fingers that the lens hood would provide enough protection from the crowds at the car show.

Attached is what the view was like at 24mm with both the B+W F-Pro and the Hoya PL-CIR on. I had to remember not to go wider than 35mm. I was able to get the filters apart later with a filter wrench.

I'm not sure what caused the Hoya to get stuck so badly. Was it the filter's aluminum frame? Was it the high humidity? This was my first time stacking filters since I started using a full-frame body, and now I know how easy it is to cause vignetting. I just measured the Hoya, and it appears to be 1cm/10mm thick. Considering how rarely I use CPL filters, I thought I would save money and go with Hoya even though all my other filters are B+W. Looks like that may have been a poor decision. The thin B+W polarizing filters are expensive, but I may end up getting a 77mm since it is the size I use most.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2014)

mpphoto said:


> I'm not sure what caused the Hoya to get stuck so badly. Was it the filter's aluminum frame?
> 
> The thin B+W polarizing filters are expensive, but I may end up getting a 77mm since it is the size I use most.



Always better to take off the UV before putting on the CPL. Only stack for effect (e.g. CPL + ND).

Aluminum tends to get stuck more frequently, it expands/contracts more than brass with temperature changes.

Even the brass rings can get stuck. Filter wrenches are ~$5 per set, I bought a several sets and keep them in a few camera bags.

The B+W XS-Pro CPL is 4mm thick.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


That certainly appears to the case and you would think they would care more about there brand...


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 3, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > What is the difference between the various types of filters offered by B+W? The XS-Pro vs the F-Pro.. etc. I don't see on the Schneider Optics page a comparison of the details of each. I found a thread online that claimed the F-Pro was made of brass whereas the XS-Pro wasn't, but according to Amazon et. al. the XS-Pro is indeed made of brass.
> ...



I didn't see your post until now, but that's what I got.


----------

