October 31, 2014, 07:10:57 PM

Author Topic: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"  (Read 9689 times)

kalmiya

  • Guest
Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« on: January 27, 2012, 03:18:11 PM »
I just noticed that besides an MRC (Multi Resistant Coating) and a non-MRC one, there is yet another filter with an "E" classification.

They all share the same basic properties ( reduce reflection, improve colors, ...), and besides that I could get the following (translated from dutch).

for the "E" : Käsemann filters offer the highest optical quality and are more resistant against extreme klimatologic conditions because the filter is 'sealed' from the inside.

for "MRC" : does not only have an extremely effective multilayer coating, but is harder then glass so it protects the filter from scratches - water and dusparticles almost don't attach to the filter-surface improving long-term high optical quality.

Ok... so E-ones are sealed from inside (and probably also from the outside?) and MRC ones protected from the outsides (and not from the inside?)... so "E" ones are "better"?


canon rumors FORUM

Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« on: January 27, 2012, 03:18:11 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14800
    • View Profile
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2012, 03:42:51 PM »
I haven't seen the "E" designation from B+W, it might be something made up by the vendor.  There is an "EW" designation, but that's one of the mount types (F-Pro is the standard, XS-Pro is slim with front threads, etc.; EW is Extra Wide, which means the glass part of the filter is wider than the lens threads, e.g. a 77mm EW filter is an 82mm filter with 77mm threads, to avoid vignetting on UWA lenses).

From the translation, it seems to refer to the Käsemann CPLs, which B+W describes like this:

The “high-end” polarizing foils of the Käsemann-type filters are neutral in color, they have a higher efficiency than conventional polarizing foils and they are cemented between high-grade plano-parallel optical glass. The resulting sandwich is then precision-polished again to achieve highly accurate plano-parallel surfaces. Subsequently they are edge-sealed to protect the foil against humidity. Discriminating photographers regard the B+W Käsemann-Type Polarizing Filter to be the very best of all polarizing filters. They are well suited for applications that require the highest possible imaging quality, especially with high-speed telephoto lenses and apochromatic lenses.

The commonly-used Käsemann polarizers are MRC-coated; the ones that are only single-coated are the linear polarizers, the standard/slim mount CPLs that are 105mm in diameter and larger, and the EW mount CPLs that are 86mm diameter and larger.

Short version: the Käsemann CPLs are of higher optical quality than the regular CPLs, and in the commonly used sizes also offer the benefits of the MRC coating.  The only downside is they cost more...
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
    • AprilForever.com
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2012, 05:07:40 PM »
How much better is a BW than the ones HOYA or Tiffen put out?
What is truth?

Cosk

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2012, 05:55:03 PM »
How much better is a BW than the ones HOYA or Tiffen put out?

I have both BW and Hoya polarizers, and the BW are definitely worth the price difference over Hoya.  In fact, I'll never buy a Hoya again after trying B+Ws. 

It seems like the Hoya filters are constantly smudging, and they're hard to clean in the field - I always seem to get purple spots and smears, even when I use lens cloths.  For some reason, the B+W ones don't have that problem - I can get the B+Ws clean with 2 seconds and a t-shirt... while the Hoyas take a minute of hard polishing with a lens cloth, and they're still hazy.

The B+Ws also are brass, which go on and off smoother than Hoya's aluminum.  Hoyas tend to jam on your lens. 

And the B+W comes in a nice case. 

I feel Hoyas are a rip-off, priced 2x what a piece of glass and aluminum should cost... and they're infuriating to use.
B+Ws are also a rip-off, also priced 2x what a piece of glass and brass should cost... but they do their job very well and are a joy to use.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 05:56:45 PM by Cosk »
5DII 5D 135L 85L 50/1.4 35L 17-40/4L | Denver, CO

kalmiya

  • Guest
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2012, 07:36:52 PM »
I haven't seen the "E" designation from B+W, it might be something made up by the vendor.  There is an "EW" designation, but that's one of the mount types (F-Pro is the standard, XS-Pro is slim with front threads, etc.; EW is Extra Wide, which means the glass part of the filter is wider than the lens threads, e.g. a 77mm EW filter is an 82mm filter with 77mm threads, to avoid vignetting on UWA lenses).

From the translation, it seems to refer to the Käsemann CPLs, which B+W describes like this:

The “high-end” polarizing foils of the Käsemann-type filters are neutral in color, they have a higher efficiency than conventional polarizing foils and they are cemented between high-grade plano-parallel optical glass. The resulting sandwich is then precision-polished again to achieve highly accurate plano-parallel surfaces. Subsequently they are edge-sealed to protect the foil against humidity. Discriminating photographers regard the B+W Käsemann-Type Polarizing Filter to be the very best of all polarizing filters. They are well suited for applications that require the highest possible imaging quality, especially with high-speed telephoto lenses and apochromatic lenses.

The commonly-used Käsemann polarizers are MRC-coated; the ones that are only single-coated are the linear polarizers, the standard/slim mount CPLs that are 105mm in diameter and larger, and the EW mount CPLs that are 86mm diameter and larger.

Short version: the Käsemann CPLs are of higher optical quality than the regular CPLs, and in the commonly used sizes also offer the benefits of the MRC coating.  The only downside is they cost more...

Thanks for the help - the ranking is clear now - the E ones are the top-of-lines  (and I got my "E" one for a good price of 77 euro's new in Germany - compared to 140 in the Netherlands) ^^

backstory:
I noticed that my Polar Filter had the text "B+W CIR.POL 77 E" on printed on it - and since my 67mm says "B+W POL.CIR 67 MRC ) i wanted to check if my 77 mm one was the cheaper non-MRC version - discovering it wasn't (that one doesn't have any extra letters) I started wondering what it was that I had.
Got so far that "E" was a Kasemann filter (original post) - but no clue what that meant - your description was more informative then the one I had ^^
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 07:43:40 PM by kalmiya »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14800
    • View Profile
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2012, 07:57:29 PM »
I noticed that my Polar Filter had the text "B+W CIR.POL 77 E" on printed on it - and since my 67mm says "B+W POL.CIR 67 MRC ) i wanted to check if my 77 mm one was the cheaper non-MRC version...

Hmmmm...  Mine are printed "## SLIM KSM C-POL MRC" (## is 77 or 82). 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

kalmiya

  • Guest
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2012, 08:04:16 PM »
Ok, to avoid confusion from arising, I took the filters to hand -
the exact text in the exact order is:

B+W 67 CIRCULAR-POL MRC
B+W 77 CIRCULAR-POL E

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2012, 08:04:16 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14800
    • View Profile
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2012, 09:19:05 PM »
Perhaps a regional thing, or perhaps they changed the labeling at some point (my 82mm filter is just over a year old, my 77mm a couple of years old).  Or, perhaps the F-Pro mount versions are labeled differently.  My other filters (UV, ND), are labeled on the front of the filter, not on the side like these slim CPLs.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

sheedoe

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2012, 09:52:16 PM »
There's also one more advantage on the xs-pro vs the F-pro standard and that is the nano coating. According to B+W:
 
"[Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC) with Nano Technology. it refers to the unique Multi Resistant Coating developed by Schneider-Kreuznach, which comes as standard on B+W XS-Pro Digital Filters.

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.

B+W's MRC Nano coating takes filter production to a new level. It features improved cleaning capabilities. Water droplets will bead up better and be easier to remove from the filter. This filter is also scratch-resistant. Single coating is applied to one layer on each glass surface. This improves light transmission from about 92% (uncoated glass) to about 98%. It also has certain anti-reflective properties that help prevent against ghosting and internal flaring.
/i]"
Canon- 5D II x2 | 70D | 8-15mm f4L Fisheye | 16-35mm f/2.8L II | 24-70mm f/2.8L II | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 24mm f/1.4L II | 35mm f/1.4L | 50mm f/1.2L | 85mm f/1.2L II |100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | 600EX-RT x3 | 580EX II | ST-E3 RT | EOS M w/22mm Lens | Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | GH4

RC

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2012, 10:55:23 PM »
Perhaps a regional thing, or perhaps they changed the labeling at some point (my 82mm filter is just over a year old, my 77mm a couple of years old).  Or, perhaps the F-Pro mount versions are labeled differently.  My other filters (UV, ND), are labeled on the front of the filter, not on the side like these slim CPLs.

Neuro, I'm assuming you use your 82mm polarizer on your 16-35 (seems like I read somewhere you have that lens), do you get any vignetting with your 5D.  Not concerned with vignetting on my 7D but someday I'll have a FF and I want to buy the correct polarizer now.  (I'm guessing the non slim version may cause some vignetting on a FF)  Thanks

kalmiya

  • Guest
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2012, 04:52:49 AM »
For reference, here is a picture of one of mine - F-Pro mount btw.


Maybe the naming is indeed related to the slim vs F-Pro mounts...
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 04:56:30 AM by kalmiya »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14800
    • View Profile
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2012, 09:31:24 AM »
Neuro, I'm assuming you use your 82mm polarizer on your 16-35 (seems like I read somewhere you have that lens), do you get any vignetting with your 5D.  Not concerned with vignetting on my 7D but someday I'll have a FF and I want to buy the correct polarizer now.  (I'm guessing the non slim version may cause some vignetting on a FF)

I occasionally use a CPL on the 16-35L II - at wider than 24mm (on FF), a polarization is uneven, so skies can look odd (sometimes it's a nice effect, though).  I also have a TS-E 24L II that takes 82mm filters.

RE vignetting, you can use a standard F-Pro filter or Slim CPL (same thickness) on a 16-35 II with no additional vignetting. Any thicker is a problem.  My test results (click for larger and details):

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

RC

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2012, 10:13:34 AM »
I occasionally use a CPL on the 16-35L II - at wider than 24mm (on FF), a polarization is uneven, so skies can look odd (sometimes it's a nice effect, though).  I also have a TS-E 24L II that takes 82mm filters.

RE vignetting, you can use a standard F-Pro filter or Slim CPL (same thickness) on a 16-35 II with no additional vignetting. Any thicker is a problem.  My test results (click for larger and details):


Thanks so much for the very thorough answer and sharing your research!   8)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2012, 10:13:34 AM »

Tijn

  • Guest
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2012, 03:05:40 PM »
I didn't see that complication so much.

MRC is a multi resistant coating. A coating added to the glass element. It prevents drops from sticking to the glass, and is scratch resistant. The non-MRC (E?) filters are cheaper than the MRC filters on all websites that I saw.

So you get the filter either with or without a water/scratch resistant coating.

There's also a third step, MRC nano, which - on top of the MRC resistance mentioned before - also reduces flare. Again, even more expensive...

But as long as you're not photographing in the rain and you're not using a screwdriver head to clean the filter, you probably don't need the MRC coating.

kalmiya

  • Guest
Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2012, 01:07:25 PM »
MRC is a multi resistant coating. A coating added to the glass element. It prevents drops from sticking to the glass, and is scratch resistant. The non-MRC (E?) filters are cheaper than the MRC filters on all websites that I saw.

There are 3 versions:
- Non-MRC
- MRC
- E ( Kasemann = MRC + Weather-sealed from inside)


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Difference between B+W POL "E" vs "MRC"
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2012, 01:07:25 PM »