# Re : B + W 105mm Circular Polarizer



## Otter (Jun 6, 2014)

I am looking into picking up a B + W 105mm Circular Polarizer to go on the end of my Lee filter holder. Does anyone familar with the product have any idea what the difference between the two that B and H Photo Video sells? Other then the price of course. They are both 105mm Kaesemann. I am not sure what "extra wide" entails considering they are both 105mm. Any help would be much appreciated! thanks!!

B+W 105mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Filter 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10873-REG/B_W_65016142_105mm_Kaeseman_Circular_Polarizing.html


B+W 105mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Extra Wide MRC Filter 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/856348-REG/B_W_66_1071051_105mm_Kaesemann_Circular_Polarizer.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

The 'extra wide' version has 105mm threads, but the glass part is wider than that to avoid/reduce vignetting (thus the higher cost).


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 6, 2014)

i've been toying with getting one for my tamron 150-600...

but between the UV filter and this it would make filters for the lens cost more than 50% of the cost of the lens 

is a CPL usefull on a supertele? Neuro do you use a CPL much on your 600?


----------



## Otter (Jun 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 'extra wide' version has 105mm threads, but the glass part is wider than that to avoid/reduce vignetting (thus the higher cost).



Thanks for the reply Neuro. Would the addition of threads bring the filter further out from the lens, in essence making them fairly similar? As well, do you have an idea if these would both fit in a lee holder?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Is a CPL usefull on a supertele? Neuro do you use a CPL much on your 600?



I use my drop-in CPL a fair bit, particularly when shooting around water. 




Otter said:


> Thanks for the reply Neuro. Would the addition of threads bring the filter further out from the lens, in essence making them fairly similar? As well, do you have an idea if these would both fit in a lee holder?



The threads don't really add much depth, and the EW filter gets much wider – it has front threads that are 122mm in diameter. 

You'd be attaching the CPL to the Lee 105mm holder, which is a just a threaded ring than mounts onto the front of the foundation kit. Anything with 105mm threads can attach, so both the regular and EW 105mm CPLs you linked would mount.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jun 6, 2014)

How wide would the lens need to be in order to necessitate the extrawide filter? Or another way of asking this, is which lenses would require the ultra extrawide filter? I'm just looking for an example or two, not an exhaustive list, to better understand the circumstances under which the extrawide filter would be needed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> How wide would the lens need to be in order to necessitate the extrawide filter? Or another way of asking this, is which lenses would require the ultra extrawide filter? I'm just looking for an example or two, not an exhaustive list, to better understand the circumstances under which the extrawide filter would be needed.



In general or in the situation the OP describes? 

In general, I've never found a need for the extra-wide mount, when putting the filter directly on the front threads of the lens, although in some cases the XS-Pro or Slim mount is needed for a CPL (e.g. with the 16-35/2.8L II, a standard CPL can cause some extra optical vignetting, but a slim or XS-Pro CPL, or a standard ND filter, are fine).

In the OP's case, the issue is the overall thickness of the stack - the Lee Foundation Kit (which is thick enough to hold 3 resin filters) on the lens, then the 105mm CPL on the front of that. I have the Lee holder, but not the 105mm ring, so I have no direct experience. But I've read varying reports that the setup results in mechanical vignetting at wider than 24mm, wider than 20mm, etc. Likely it depends on the lens (20mm with the 17-40/4 vs 16-35/2.8, for example).


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 6, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> i've been toying with getting one for my tamron 150-600...
> 
> but between the UV filter and this it would make filters for the lens cost more than 50% of the cost of the lens
> 
> is a CPL usefull on a supertele? Neuro do you use a CPL much on your 600?


Wow, the Canon 52mm drop-in CPL seems like a bargain in comparison 

I use my CPL as soon as there's enough light for it, pretty much every time I shoot. For bird feathers, reptile scales, water, sky, and just about everything else, it cuts the glare enough that I can shoot for another hour or two, which is a huge deal to me, especially in the winter when the golden "hours" are so short. I can post some examples this weekend if you'd like to see the difference it makes. 

The two stop loss effectively turns my 300 f/2.8 in a 300 f/5.6, 420 f/8, and 600 f/11 and affects AF considerably with the 2x. On a f/6.3 lens, I'm not sure I'd do it, though, as I never had much luck using a CPL on my 400 f/5.6 using a (1.5 EV) polarizer.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jun 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > How wide would the lens need to be in order to necessitate the extrawide filter? Or another way of asking this, is which lenses would require the ultra extrawide filter? I'm just looking for an example or two, not an exhaustive list, to better understand the circumstances under which the extrawide filter would be needed.
> ...



Thank you, Neuro!


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i've been toying with getting one for my tamron 150-600...
> ...


please i would appreciate seeing the comparison


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 7, 2014)

Here are a few I took on purpose to show the difference, but they are handheld, so they don't line up perfectly. They were taken moments apart, however, with the CPL being the only difference - the first in water, where it's obvious, but look at the blown out highlights in the second set as well. It's really a bit overdone and makes the skin look dull, but it shows the effect of the CPL well. Also, no PP at all here - I just opened these in ACR and resized them.


----------



## dcschooley (Jun 7, 2014)

Otter said:


> I am looking into picking up a B + W 105mm Circular Polarizer to go on the end of my Lee filter holder. Does anyone familar with the product have any idea what the difference between the two that B and H Photo Video sells? Other then the price of course. They are both 105mm Kaesemann. I am not sure what "extra wide" entails considering they are both 105mm. Any help would be much appreciated! thanks!!
> 
> B+W 105mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Filter
> 
> ...



I have the regular B+W 105mm Kaesemann. It's pretty stiff, which can be annoying with the Lee filter holder. It was enough of a problem that I bought a Heliopan. I like the Heliopan much better, and I'll eventually get around to selling the B+W.

A bit of extra thickness can be useful when using one of the hooded Lee filter holders because it gives your fingers more to grab onto. It's probably not a big deal with just the holder.


----------



## wopbv4 (Jun 7, 2014)

Hi,

I use the Lee filter holder with TWO slots and attached the Lee 105 CP in front of that.
I find that on a TS 24, I can see the hard edges in the frame. Only after removing one of the two filter slots, I can use the CP without having problems.

Just a word of warning, I made a BIG mistake in the past !
I attached a normal 82 CP to 16-35 and then attached the Lee adapter ring to the CP. 
It took me forever to seperate the adapter ring from the CP as the front ring of the CP complete "screws" inside the adapter and there is nothing to hold on to. I solved this by using a cloth to put pressure of the actual glass of the CP to get grip and release it from the adapter that way.
I succeeded in the end, but I used some bad language in the process.


----------



## Otter (Jun 9, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> How wide would the lens need to be in order to necessitate the extrawide filter? Or another way of asking this, is which lenses would require the ultra extrawide filter? I'm just looking for an example or two, not an exhaustive list, to better understand the circumstances under which the extrawide filter would be needed.



These are the only hands on reviews I've seen of the extra wide 105mm

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/856348-REG/B_W_66_1071051_105mm_Kaesemann_Circular_Polarizer.html

People claim that you should be able to get close to 16mm. I do not think you can get to 16mm, but you most likely could get below 20mm. I shoot with the 16-35mm I with 2 slots on the Lee holder, I do get some vignetting wide open on my 5D MKIII at 16mm. I am curious if anyone knows, is the vignetting the same on the 16-35mm I vs II? I know the one has a 77mm end and the II is 82mm I believe. Does that make a difference and translate into less vingetting?


----------



## Vivid Color (Jun 10, 2014)

Otter said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > How wide would the lens need to be in order to necessitate the extrawide filter? Or another way of asking this, is which lenses would require the ultra extrawide filter? I'm just looking for an example or two, not an exhaustive list, to better understand the circumstances under which the extrawide filter would be needed.
> ...



Thank you, Otter!


----------



## Halfrack (Jun 10, 2014)

Might consider the 4x4 CP or LP filter as well. How many filters are you going to combine the polarizer with? How wide of a lens are you going to use this with?

I know, so much money, and no one carries them on hand. I got the 105mm holder for my Hitech 4x4 stuff, but returned it since when I want to go wide, I really need the 130/150mm stuff.


----------

