August 23, 2014, 11:20:22 AM

Author Topic: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?  (Read 9098 times)

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2013, 08:36:00 AM »
I just hit “purchase” on the 24-70 II USM since I didn’t know when the sale would end at B&H.  This is a great – but frustrating – thread for me because I thought I knew which filter I was going to purchase: Hoya UV Haze HD, but now after following this thread I am looking at the B+W XS Pro. I also have to admit that those suggesting no filter are making a pretty good case as well.

I do a lot of indoor shooting and plan to use this lens for video (mostly indoor).  I’m no pro but really baby all the gear that I own so Dick’s Lens Hood protection method is intriguing.   

At the risk of not getting too off-topic, can someone comment on the Hoya UV Haze HD versus the B+W XS Pro?
Congrats on the new lens, though I am a bit envious of the deal you received on it!  The Hoya threads are perfectly fine but a bit harder to clean than the B+Ws, especially the Nano models.  The trick is to clean the Hoya filters with whatever method you normally use, then breathe on it and use a microfiber cloth to clean off the condensation.
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

Jim O

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Driving the short bus
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2013, 09:13:32 AM »
Just to throw some actual data into the mix, look at http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html. I know it's a few years old, but it's objective (perhaps even "scientific") and may be helpful.

[OFFTOPIC]They also have data on circular polarizers at http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html. It's also a few years old.[/OFFTOPIC]

Heliopan comes out poorly in both and seems a poor value for the money, at least at the time these were written. Hoya UV filters and Marumi polarizers seem to give the best results. especially when cost is factored into the analysis. Again, this is a few years old and may not reflect current models.
When people see you arguing with an idiot on the internet, all they see is two idiots arguing.

Ripley

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2013, 10:26:40 AM »
Is there an optical difference between...

- B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
- B+W 82mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

?
5Diii | 24-70L ii | 70-200L ii | 600EX-RT x 2 | ST-E3-RT

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13872
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2013, 11:10:38 AM »
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.

As a dSLR user, I don't care about UV blockage, since dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV (my choice might be different if I was shooting film).  But I do care about visible light transmission (including deep blues, where the camera's own reduced insensitivity doens't need the filter makeing it worse), and I care about flare.  So for me, the B+W is the better choice from an optical standpoint.

Is there an optical difference between...

- B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
- B+W 82mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

B+W states, " The nano coating is an outer layer of protection that comes standard with all XS-Pro Digital MRC filters. The nanotechnology based characteristic (lotus effect) produces a better beading effect with water making the cleaning of this filter even simpler and faster than ever before. MRC nano has an improved outer (8th) layer over regular MRC." So, the implication is the the Nano coating provides physical benefits but not optical benefits.  I haven't noticed any optical differences between my MRC and my Nano filters.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jasonsim

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Hobbyist
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2013, 11:53:08 AM »
I personally use the B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter and B+W 82mm Kaesemann XS-Pro Circular Polarizer MRC Nano Filter on my 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II lens.  They are real quality.  But I also use Hoyal Digital Pro-1 UV filters on other Canon L primes that I have.  Like Nero says, the Hoya's tend to add a warmth to the photos.  I sometimes like that about them.  They are really good filters too, but the B+W is just built a bit better.

You might even consider some of the newer Hoya filters like the EVO line:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855499-REG/Hoya_XEV82UV_82mm_EVO_UV_0.html
Cams: Canon 1Dx, EOS M
Zooms: 17-40mm f/4L, 70-200mm f/4L, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, 70-200mm f/2.8L II; Primes: 22mm f/2, 40mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L, 135mm f/2L, 300mm f/2.8L IS II, 600mm f/4L II
Support: Gitzo GT4542LS/G2258, RRS BH-55, Wimberley WH-200

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1469
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2013, 01:56:42 AM »
Do the lens caps fit with the B+W nano filters?
Light is language!

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3465
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2013, 03:52:24 AM »
I can´t recommend to use a protective filter.

The only filters you need are polfilters, ND filters and ND grad filters.

It depends. I was once filming a sports celebration, all of a sudden bonfires popped up, next thing I know I get back and notice that tiny embers apparently burned permanent damage marks all over the filter coating. I'm pretty glad I had a filter on! And I once somehow got a scratch on a front element, not sure how, but had it had a filter....

Under decent conditions when flare scenarios are encountered I tend to leave them off though.

Quote
But if you want a filter buy a slim filter from B+W.

Why? They cost more and are not needed. Some of the slim ones don't take caps well either. I don't like them at all.
(B+W is good, it's the slim that I'm not fond of)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3465
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2013, 03:55:21 AM »
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.

As a dSLR user, I don't care about UV blockage, since dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV (my choice might be different if I was shooting film).  But I do care about visible light transmission (including deep blues, where the camera's own reduced insensitivity doens't need the filter makeing it worse), and I care about flare.  So for me, the B+W is the better choice from an optical standpoint.

Is there an optical difference between...

- B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
- B+W 82mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

B+W states, " The nano coating is an outer layer of protection that comes standard with all XS-Pro Digital MRC filters. The nanotechnology based characteristic (lotus effect) produces a better beading effect with water making the cleaning of this filter even simpler and faster than ever before. MRC nano has an improved outer (8th) layer over regular MRC." So, the implication is the the Nano coating provides physical benefits but not optical benefits.  I haven't noticed any optical differences between my MRC and my Nano filters.

+1

also, just get a clear 007 B+W and get even more complete spectral transmission, digital doesn't need UV cut

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3322
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2013, 05:29:49 AM »
Do the lens caps fit with the B+W nano filters?
Yes the lens cap fits the B+W XS-Pro Nano filters ... and the good thing is they are almost as thin as the slim filters.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 05:31:43 AM by Rienzphotoz »
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13872
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2013, 07:26:44 AM »
Do the lens caps fit with the B+W nano filters?

Yes.  There's a small gap (~0.75 mm), but I haven't found it to be a problem. The F-Pro filters have a gap, too, although it's smaller.

EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Ripley

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2013, 12:32:43 PM »
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.

As a dSLR user, I don't care about UV blockage, since dSLR sensors are insensitive to UV (my choice might be different if I was shooting film).  But I do care about visible light transmission (including deep blues, where the camera's own reduced insensitivity doens't need the filter makeing it worse), and I care about flare.  So for me, the B+W is the better choice from an optical standpoint.

Is there an optical difference between...

- B+W 82mm XS-Pro UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter
- B+W 82mm UV Haze MRC 010M Filter

B+W states, " The nano coating is an outer layer of protection that comes standard with all XS-Pro Digital MRC filters. The nanotechnology based characteristic (lotus effect) produces a better beading effect with water making the cleaning of this filter even simpler and faster than ever before. MRC nano has an improved outer (8th) layer over regular MRC." So, the implication is the the Nano coating provides physical benefits but not optical benefits.  I haven't noticed any optical differences between my MRC and my Nano filters.

Thank you Neuro. Would you mind commenting on the B+W UV models versus the B+W Clear models? All of my lenses currently have the F-Pro UV model on them.
5Diii | 24-70L ii | 70-200L ii | 600EX-RT x 2 | ST-E3-RT

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13872
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2013, 03:46:37 PM »
Thank you Neuro. Would you mind commenting on the B+W UV models versus the B+W Clear models? All of my lenses currently have the F-Pro UV model on them.

Really only matters if you're shooting film.  For a dSLR, there's no significant difference between UV and Clear.  My advice would be to get whichever is cheaper and/or more available (varies by size, vendor, and geography).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1230
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2013, 05:22:06 PM »
Thank you Neuro. Would you mind commenting on the B+W UV models versus the B+W Clear models? All of my lenses currently have the F-Pro UV model on them.

Really only matters if you're shooting film.  For a dSLR, there's no significant difference between UV and Clear.  My advice would be to get whichever is cheaper and/or more available (varies by size, vendor, and geography).

Thanks, your advice from this old thread answered three new questions of mine (XS-Pro vs F-Pro for the 24-70 II, will the cap fit in the former, UV vs clear).
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

digitalpuppy

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2013, 05:59:34 PM »
Partially based on this thread (and some other photographer friends) I went with the B+W XS Pro Clear Nano 007.  The combo is still new to me, but I'm taking some gorgeous shots with my 24-70 II (center-pinch cap).  Thanks for all of the feedback!
Just a little puppy trying to make it in a big digital world.

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1230
    • View Profile
Re: Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?
« Reply #44 on: November 29, 2013, 04:59:52 AM »
Partially based on this thread (and some other photographer friends) I went with the B+W XS Pro Clear Nano 007.  The combo is still new to me, but I'm taking some gorgeous shots with my 24-70 II (center-pinch cap).  Thanks for all of the feedback!

It's interesting how the same thread can give two individuals entirely different suggestions. I guess it shows that the answer one seeks is really within one's mind, and they view the world accordingly to suit that answer...  ::) ::) ::)
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3