# 24-70 f/2.8II flare



## pwp (Jun 25, 2016)

In almost all respects I'm truly loving the 24-70 f/2.8II which I got a couple of years ago. I'm one of those photographers who works hard with all my attention on the project and minimal regard for the well-being of the hardware, so it does get bumped and exposed to dirt, dust & the sort of muck you might expect to encounter in an oil refinery. The filter often gets a wipe down with my shirt. Canon bodies and L glass are durable and built to hack the daily grind. Like wearing a seatbelt in my car, I value the protection I get from a UV protective filter and routinely have either a UV attached, as well as the hood. The UV is an alleged good one, a Rodenstock Digital Pro UV/1x 82mm.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/876158-REG/Rodenstock_408211_82mm_UV_Blocking_HR.html
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/uv-blocking-filter

Reviews of this lens all comment on how good its flare resistance is, particularly for a zoom. Mine seems very vulnerable to flare, the dreaded green blobs. Maybe it's that Rodenstock filter. 

Is there a particular filter brand/model that has the highest no-flare credentials?

-pw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2016)

Lenstip tested several brands a while back, although not Rodenstock. B+W was the best overall for dSLR users, and B+W and Hoya had the best flare resistance (better than Heliopan, much better than Tiffen).

I use a B+W XS-Pro MRC Nano UV on my 24-70 II, it does pretty well (example below at 28mm f/4) but no filter will be perfect (and the bare lens itself does have some flare).


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 25, 2016)

If I know I'm likely to be shooting in an outdoor situation with sun coming in at an angle, I put my B+W in its case, rely on the lens hood, and cross my fingers. Otherwise I never think about the filter.


----------



## Pookie (Jun 25, 2016)

I also use a B+W XS-Pro MRC Nano UV... I find it to be worse with it off and with more green in the flare that's harder to correct in PP. The hood is about as worthless as a 3$ bill.

Last month...


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 25, 2016)

Flare was my number one issue with the 24-70 LII. I often like having the sun in the frame, but the sun would most often create some annoying artifacts on the 24-70. The 16-35f4 L IS on the other hand will often perform flawlessly with the sun in the frame, and is way better, and my favorite lens, when it comes to flare.


----------



## pwp (Jun 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lenstip tested several brands a while back, although not Rodenstock. B+W was the best overall for dSLR users, and B+W and Hoya had the best flare resistance (better than Heliopan, much better than Tiffen).
> 
> I use a B+W XS-Pro MRC Nano UV on my 24-70 II, it does pretty well (example below at 28mm f/4) but no filter will be perfect (and the bare lens itself does have some flare).


Thanks Neuro, although a search for "B+W XS-Pro MRC Nano UV" or "UV filter comparison" at LensTip doesn't reveal the article/test. Maybe they've got a lousy search engine. Nevertheless, I'll order one from B&H. Worth a try!

edit: may have found it. Were you referring to the 2009 piece which ranked Hoya first & second?
http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

-pw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2016)

pwp said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Lenstip tested several brands a while back, although not Rodenstock. B+W was the best overall for dSLR users, and B+W and Hoya had the best flare resistance (better than Heliopan, much better than Tiffen).
> ...



Yes, that's the one. I previously explained my statement that their tests show B+W is the best overall _for dSLR users_. 



neuroanatomist said:


> For anyone looking at the Lenstip UV filter tests, like any test where a 'score' is generated, it's important to understand the factors that are used to generate that score.
> 
> For example, the B+W filter does better than the Hoya on visibile light transmission and flare, whereas the Hoya does better at blocking UV light (the latter accounts for a 5-point difference on their 40-point scale). In fact, if you look at the measured transmission curves, the reason the Hoya does better at blocking UV is that the left side of the bandpass starts at a slightly shorter wavelength - and that means the Hoya filter blocks UV better at the cost of also blocking some of the visible blue light. The Heliopan, on the other hand, is significantly worse than the Hoya in that it blocks even more of the blue light.
> 
> For the Lenstip tests, I recommend looking at the test results, not the summary table. For example, compare the top scoring Hoya with the 3rd place B+W - the Hoya scored 90% (36/40), the B+W scored 83% (33/40). But, when you look at the subscores which they provide that sum to a possible 40 pts, you see that B+W loses 1 pt for visible transmission, 1 pt for flare, and 5 pts for UV transmission. The Hoya loses 2 pts for visible transmission, 2 pts for flare, and gets 10/10 for UV transmission. But for a dSLR user, UV transmission is irrelevant...meaning that for a dSLR user, the B+W is the better filter according to Lenstip's testing, since it's better on both visible light transmission and flare...but if you look only at the summary, you'd get a different conclusion.


----------



## pwp (Jun 26, 2016)

The B+W XS-Pro MRC Nano UV looks to be the best option, though the comparison was done in 2009. Anyone aware of a filter that has been released since 2009 that exceeds the B+W XS-Pro MRC Nano UV status?

-pw


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 27, 2016)

I've not done any formal testing but I have had the best results with both the B&W and the Breakthrough UV filters. FWIW, both seem equal on the 24-70 f/2.8. I could not find my B&W and ordered a Breakthrough X4 UV filter. Later, the old B&W turned up in another bag (my bad) so now I have both and have no qualms using either.


----------



## pwp (Jul 12, 2016)

Just circling back to this thread after updating my Rodenstock Digital Pro UV/1x with a B+W XS-Pro MRC Nano UV on my 24-70 f/2.8II. The difference is huge. The flare issues have largely disappeared. It does have it's obvious challenges, but I do like shooting into and against strong light. When it works it's brilliant. I read a paper by an art/visuals psychologist PhD who proposed that images of people with strong light behind them evokes a feeling of optimism. I'll work with any perceived advantage to give my clients a competitive edge. 

I gave the Mastercard a hammering a couple of years ago stocking up on 82mm filters for the 24-70 f/2.8II and the 16-35 f/2.8II, including an eye-wateringly expensive CPL. It would appear that a premium priced, premium name like Rodenstock doesn't necessarily translate into quality products. I'd now rank the Rodenstocks with mid-range Hoya's. 

-pw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2016)

Glad it was an easy fix, even if not totally painless.


----------



## pwp (Jul 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Glad it was an easy fix, even if not totally painless.


Yep, totally painless ;D 
It's time to pay attention to the prevailing CR viewpoint with filters...
Just Get B&W Genuine-only. That eBay deal that looks too good to be true... ??? 

-pw


----------

