# Sigma WR ceramic filter line - pricing announced



## ahsanford (Jan 22, 2016)

FYI on pricing for the Sigma's tough new ceramic filter line:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Sigma+Ceramic+Protector+Filter&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=
- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 22, 2016)

They claim that it prevents damage to a lens. I don't see how that's possible, lenses are damaged in many ways when dropped on the front end, including hidden internal damage.

For the price, you can probably buy a new front lens element.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 22, 2016)

Great for rich guys attempting the elusive bullet flying directly into the lens shot


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 23, 2016)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax9NU8lbvYQ

I've been using my 40mm Pancake capless for a little while, and it's kind of nice. And from that angle, the idea of having a filter protect your lens while packed in a bag is a bit different from protecting it from accidents while in use.
At least it's an improvement for anyone who has come up with reasons to use a protective filter.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 23, 2016)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHJxRxErwTc

Ok, I found another video of Sigma filters, I'm not entirely sure what product this is, other than that the name "Sigma" and designation "WR" are shared.
Anyway, the fluid repellence is remarkable.
Maybe the modern coatings on some lenses perform similarly, and I'm fairly certain that I've read about other filters that do this sort of thing before, but having both the ease of cleaning and shock resistance in combination sounds nice.


----------



## MickDK (Jan 23, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They claim that it prevents damage to a lens. I don't see how that's possible, lenses are damaged in many ways when dropped on the front end, including hidden internal damage.
> 
> For the price, you can probably buy a new front lens element.


I think the filter is a much cheaper solution than replacing the front lens element. Also more convenient - you would have to do without the lens while being serviced.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jan 23, 2016)

A couple of weeks ago, I was helping someone move some stuff out of their old house and they gave me a crappy old lens that was of no use for anything. For poops and giggles, I decided to see how much effort it took to scratch the front element. I had to jab the damn thing as hard as possible with a ice pick type of metal tool to even get the slightest ding. I even took a saw blade and worked it into the lens as hard as I could and all it did was slightly cut away some of the coating. I would never use a protective filter for shooting unless to keep water out.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 23, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They claim that it prevents damage to a lens. I don't see how that's possible, lenses are damaged in many ways when dropped on the front end, including hidden internal damage.
> 
> For the price, you can probably buy a new front lens element.



If it is needed to make your water-resistant Canon lens water-resistant it can save more than a scratched front element for starters.

Also, there's potential damage that you may not notice of the soft lens coating Canon applies. Canon directly warns about this. And Canon directly recommends the use of a protective filter. No drilling or chain saw needed. A finger print can be enough. Here from Canon Professional network:

"The glass used for making optical lenses is often much softer than other types of glass. Once marked, it is not easy to clean. Most lenses have a coating applied to the surface of the front element. The main purpose of this is to reduce the risk of flare, but it also provides a harder surface. However, the term ‘harder’ is relative, and it is still quite easy to damage the surface of the lens. Rain, dust, flying stones, foliage and fingers are among the potential dangers.

Fingers in particular are a risk. Your fingertips exude an acidic grease which can, over a period of time, eat into the surface of the lens. The result may not be very noticeable, but it can increase the effect of flare. For this reason, if you touch the surface of the lens with your fingers, you should polish it gently with a soft, dry cloth to wipe away the grease.

You can protect the surface of the lens from fingers and other perils by attaching a filter. This screws into the mount at the front of the lens, forming a virtually dustproof seal between the surface of the lens and the outside world. Any dust or damage is then sustained by the filter and not the lens. If the damage is beyond normal cleaning methods, it is far cheaper to replace the filter than the lens."


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 23, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They claim that it prevents damage to a lens. I don't see how that's possible



Found my old YES-my-filter-saved-my-lens documented samples (there are lots of such forum threads around). It is as often the barrel as the front element which is saved by using a filter.:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00a2LF

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robbie_ewing/4997119140/

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2010/02/27/using-filters/

http://blog.production-now.com/2010/11/uv-lens-saved-my-camera.html

http://community.the-digital-picture.com/showthread.php?t=1223

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=169640

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/33631

http://www.flickr.com/photos/enfo/5460898319/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bibbit/2771036799/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/tokina124/discuss/72157623441192917/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > They claim that it prevents damage to a lens. I don't see how that's possible
> ...



I've seen at least that many 'My filter broke on impact and the filter glass scratched my front element' threads. 

Having said that, personally I use a filter on most lenses that take them (except the M22/2).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 23, 2016)

MickDK said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > They claim that it prevents damage to a lens. I don't see how that's possible, lenses are damaged in many ways when dropped on the front end, including hidden internal damage.
> ...



Except if you drop a lens, it will likely need the lens serviced as well, so it does not save anything. Many people buy a front element to replace one that was gouged or badly scratched for a few dollars and pop it in. Many of the lenses have front elements that serve no optical purpose, they are basically glass protectors and many times tougher than a filter.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jan 23, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> MickDK said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Kinda like using an umbrella to block a falling Acme anvil?


----------



## sunnyVan (Jan 23, 2016)

I'm sticking with my b+w filters. But i applaud sigma for being innovative.


----------



## Click (Jan 23, 2016)

sunnyVan said:


> I'm sticking with my b+w filters. But i applaud sigma for being innovative.



+1


----------



## edknuff (Jan 23, 2016)

Optical quality...?


----------



## Gribok (Jan 23, 2016)

Out of about 12-15 lenses that I've used over a span of about 30 years I can only remember one time when I dropped my old 100mm marco into a mixture of mud and gravel face first. Needless to say, I was very glad I had a UV filter on. I tossed the filter when I got home, and my lens didn't require some delicate cleaning procedure. Perhaps if I had one of these Sigma filters I would have cleaned it and kept on using it, at which point it would have paid for it self vs. a cheaper filter.

One other thing I'd like to add to this discussion, and I've had this happen to me once... I once dropped a lens with it's hood onto some hard surface. The plastic hood snapped in half, but the lens was completely intact. In my humble opinion, one should use both a filter and a hood "whenever possible". I say "whenever possible", because there are times when a filter does visually impede the image quality, and only during those very infrequent times will I take the filter off, take the picture, and then put the filter back on.


----------



## Cali Capture (Jan 23, 2016)

If you use a Sigma Filter, your autofocus will become hit and miss, unless you calibrate the filter with the dock


----------



## SweOz (Jan 23, 2016)

My 24-105 was saved by the filter 6 months ago when dropped during a sailing trip


----------



## Jopa (Jan 23, 2016)

Not good enough, Sigma. I'll wait for a bullet proof filter. It needs to withstand at least a BMG 50 round.


----------



## C-FMST (Jan 23, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Not good enough, Sigma. I'll wait for a bullet proof filter. It needs to withstand at least a BMG 50 round.



Transparent aluminum!


----------



## davidcarlyon (Jan 24, 2016)

I used to go filterless, when my lenses were all under $500. Now that I have a lot more invested in my lenses, I use B+W filters. It gives me piece of mind if I'm shooting in a drizzle, or a rodeo with dirt flying around. I'm not afraid to wipe the filter down with my shirt if I need to.

These Sigma filters look interesting, though it seems to me that an impact that would break a lesser filter would likely be bad for the the lens internally anyway - so I wouldn't be swayed to switch for that. However, if it matches the optical quality of B+W and improves upon it with dust and water repellence, than I would consider it when buying one for a new lens.


----------



## mpphoto (Jan 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



You mean like this? I dropped an EF 300mm f/4L IS USM on a concrete floor. It was in one of those off-white Canon lens cases that come with some L lenses. The case didn't do much to absorb the shock. I had no idea I had broken the filter and lens cap until I opened the case a few hours later, after the shards of glass had time to bounce around and scratch the lens glass. I got the filter off and did the best I could without any cleaning supplies to get rid of the broken glass and dust and still got some great bird photos despite the dirty dusty front element. Later, I very carefully used an air blower and lens papers moistened with lens cleaner to get the glass dust off the front element.

The lens works fine, but now there are some small scratches that don't affect image quality. For this lens, I haven't bothered putting another UV filter on it. The hood is large and built into the lens. That's enough protection. I still use filters as protection on other lenses. I kept the broken filter and lens cap from the 300mm as a reminder to be careful with my gear.

As for these Sigma filters, they sound impressive but are too expensive for me. I'll stick with B+W.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 24, 2016)

mpphoto said:


> I dropped an EF 300mm f/4L IS USM on a concrete floor. It was in one of those off-white Canon lens cases that come with some L lenses. The case didn't do much to absorb the shock. I had no idea I had broken the filter and lens cap until I opened the case a few hours later, after the shards of glass had time to bounce around and scratch the lens glass. I got the filter off and did the best I could without any cleaning supplies to get rid of the broken glass and dust and still got some great bird photos despite the dirty dusty front element. Later, I very carefully used an air blower and lens papers moistened with lens cleaner to get the glass dust off the front element.
> 
> The lens works fine, but now there are some small scratches that don't affect image quality. For this lens, I haven't bothered putting another UV filter on it. The hood is large and built into the lens. That's enough protection. I still use filters as protection on other lenses. I kept the broken filter and lens cap from the 300mm as a reminder to be careful with my gear.
> 
> As for these Sigma filters, they sound impressive but are too expensive for me. I'll stick with B+W.



How unfortunate. First time I have ever seen a documented case like this. Impressive the lens elements survived the impact without being messed up and needing re-adjustment. Did you ever check it for de-centering (of course mostly important for those who shoot brick walls or landscapes...)?


----------



## aclectasis (Jan 24, 2016)

Oh wow, I guess when a giant lead ball falls on my lens I will wished I had bought these :


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 24, 2016)

mpphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



I think people are missing the point that the Sigma filter probably wouldn't break in these circumstances.

We need to get Digital Rev to do a drop test (or just send them a filter and let nature run its course).


----------



## spanish_z (Jan 24, 2016)

This Sigma video is very misleading, not to say other things.

This test only shows that it is stronger than that particular other filter shown (we don't know which). It does not show that it will protect your lens from impact, as the video might imply.

I would really love to see this test's results using a base cylinder with a diameter equal to that of the filter.
Then, and only then, I would become a believer !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cali Capture (Jan 24, 2016)

Spanish, I saw the same thing! For all the precision in the magnetic ball drop and high speed video, the guy goes and just slaps the filter (off center for the Sigma) down on a surface that DOSE NOT represent a filters architecture on a lens! There is NO direct support behind a filter on a lens! I'm not a materials engineer, but the issue of flexability and tensile strength spanning the distance over the filter thread distance is Very important! From what I know Ceramics are harder/stronger, yet more brittle, so in a span they have diminishing returns the greater the distance and the thinner the material. This test would then be ideal for the attributes of ceramics, but not much of a real world comparison! 

Plus it's a Sigma, so you need a dock to adjust the strength! (no one seamed to get my first joke, so I'm trying again )


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2016)

Crosswind said:


> Too bad that there isn't something like this for my 8-15mm L fisheye, just bigger and greatly curved... to maintain the ability of a full 180° fov, while having some scratch protection I have to be very careful with it.



I am not careful with my EF 15 fisheye, TS-E 17, or EF 11-24. I have found the front coatings, especially on the newer lenses, to be remarkably robust.


----------



## scottgoh (Jan 25, 2016)

very innovative to even get into the Filter market other than the lenses. Good job on bringing the bar up Sigma!


----------



## martti (Jan 25, 2016)

I love the way the Sigma filter took the punch without a scratch joyfully spinning, mocking the mortals.
Kudos to the art director. And thousand per cent reminds me of the good old days of the Soviet Five Year Plans.


Unless you break your lenses only after you have finished your shoot, I think it is a brilliant idea have this protection in front of your Front Element.


----------



## drs (Jan 26, 2016)

I use protection filters since long (three decades+). No crash so far, but several little scratches on these protection filters. 

With my lens collection and the amount of protection filters, I could have bought one new lens instead of all the protection filters, true. I don't use cheap nor uncoated filters here.

What I like is the option to be in a couple of seconds later ready to get my shot (after something happened), and not have to wait weeks to get my lens repaired, and have to rent a similar lens on top of that. Worse case, some of my lenses are of course vintage glass, I would have no idea how to repair those.

I have no fear to clean those filters with my shirt if there is not time for a proper cleaning, I wouldn't do that with a naked front element of course.

I look forward to the ceramic ones, even I might use them only on upper level glass, $2K+, so only a few here.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 26, 2016)

As someone mentioned, with the strength of this glass, what is the optical quality/compromise are we going to have? I completely get that the thicker the glass it is, the more glass light has to go through to get to the sensor... THAT'S the test that will show it's true colors. That being said, a nice high quality filter is always a good insurance policy... I understand the theory of shock traveling to the outwards elements meaning that in case of strong shock (dropping) the outwards most elements, in theory, should take the brunt of the damage, so in this case, that would be the filter instead of the front element... But i do get things are never the same and no two drops are the same...


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 28, 2016)

JP4DESIGNZ said:


> This is the best explanation of why anyone would want a protective filter I ever heard.



Its a good reminder from Canon that:

1) Lens surfaces are actually soft and easily prone to damage in spite of the often repeated forum claims that lens surfaces are "hard" and "tough".

2) That sometimes you may not be able to see that a lens front has sustained damage - which again can lead people to believe 1).


----------



## mugentim (Jan 30, 2016)

I'd love to have this glass on my phone !


----------

