Protective filter for 24-70 II - standard or thin?

[Ripley]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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).

 

[sagittariansrock]

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).

 

[digitalpuppy]

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!

 

[sagittariansrock]

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... : : :

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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... : : :

???

 

[sagittariansrock]

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... : : :

???

Oh, never mind. I was just amused how while I figured from the post F-Pro will be fine for my 24-70 II, while digitalpuppy went with the XS-Pro based on the same thread.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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... : : :

???

Oh, never mind. I was just amused how while I figured from the post F-Pro will be fine for my 24-70 II, while digitalpuppy went with the XS-Pro based on the same thread.

OK, I get it now. Cheers

 

[WPJ]

I can´t recommend to use a protective filter.

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

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

thanks,for this, but can you say why do you have any reasoning to go with your statement?

 

[entlassen]

I'm reading through this thread and have some questions about the B+W line of 82mm Clear filters, of which I see three on B&H:

(A) B+W 82mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 [$121.95]
(B) B+W 82mm 007M Clear MRC Filter [$100.66]
(C) B+W 82mm Clear Slim MRC 007M filter [$139.99]


My questions are:
1) I know that (C) is "thin." I know that (B) is "standard." But what is (A), thin or standard?
2) I see this warning in the item description for (A) on B&H's site:

This filter ring's outside diameter is slightly larger than the actual thread size, and because of this you may be unable to attach the lens manufacturer's bayonet-mounted lens hood to the lens while using this filter. This is dependent on your specific lens and how thick the front rim of the lens is; with thinner, low-profile lenses usually being affected more.

Does this lens hood problem affect the 82mm XS-Pro on the 24-70 f/2.8 II? And is this a problem with the 77mm XS-Pro on the 70-200 f/2.8 II?
3) I see people in the thread mentioning a 82mm "F-Pro" filter. Is that referring to (B), or something else entirely? I can't seem to find a mention of "F-Pro" on B&H.
4) Is stacking a circular polarizer filter on top of an existing Clear/UV filter something that people commonly do? Or are you supposed to take off the Clear/UV filter first, then screw on the circular polarizer?
5) Is (A) too thin to stack another filter on top of it?

 

[Loswr]

I'm reading through this thread and have some questions about the B+W line of 82mm Clear filters, of which I see three on B&H:

(A) B+W 82mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 [$121.95]
(B) B+W 82mm 007M Clear MRC Filter [$100.66]
(C) B+W 82mm Clear Slim MRC 007M filter [$170]

My questions are:
1) I know that (C) is "thin." I know that (B) is "standard." But what is (A), thin or standard?
2) I see this warning in the item description for (A) on B&H's site:

This filter ring's outside diameter is slightly larger than the actual thread size, and because of this you may be unable to attach the lens manufacturer's bayonet-mounted lens hood to the lens while using this filter. This is dependent on your specific lens and how thick the front rim of the lens is; with thinner, low-profile lenses usually being affected more.

Does this lens hood problem affect the 82mm XS-Pro on the 24-70 f/2.8 II? And is this a problem with the 77mm XS-Pro on the 70-200 f/2.8 II?
3) I see people in the thread mentioning a 82mm "F-Pro" filter. Is that referring to (B), or something else entirely? I can't seem to find a mention of "F-Pro" on B&H.
4) Is stacking a circular polarizer filter on top of an existing Clear/UV filter something that people commonly do? Or are you supposed to take off the Clear/UV filter first, then screw on the circular polarizer?
5) Is (A) too thin to stack another filter on top of it?

1) 'A' (XS-Pro) is thin, but has front threads whereas the Slim does not, meaning the standard lens cap doesn't work (it comes with a slip-on). By the numbers, for non-CPL filters: F-Pro (the official name of the 'standard' mount) is 5mm thick, XS-Pro is 3.4mm thick, and Slim is 3mm thick.

2) Ignore the 'warning'. I've got XS-Pro filters in many sizes, no issues with hoods.

3) Yes, F-Pro is 'B'. In addition to XS-Pro and Slim, you may also see Extra-Wide - those have bigger glass to avoid vignetting (e.g., the 77mm EW has 77mm threads but an 82mm filter - those do often cause hood problems).

4) Stacking provides no benefit (other than speed). Conventional wisdom is it hurts IQ, I haven't tested it...but I don't stack unless I'm in a big hurry. I do stack a CPL on an ND, though, to get combined effects.

5) Since 'A' (XS-Pro) is thin but has a front thread, that's the one you want if you're going to stack - a thinner stack means less chance of vignetting. You can't stack another filter onto a Slim filter.

 

[entlassen]

Wow, thanks neuroanatomist for the incredibly quick and comprehensive reply!

Is the XS-Pro's front-thread the same size as the F-Pro's, or is it smaller since the XS-Pro itself is thin? I'm just curious because if there's one thing I hate, it's a small profile front-thread which causes lens caps to have problems staying on (whether it be the old Canon models or the new "center-pinch" models). I've lost a couple of lens caps in the past because they couldn't stay on properly (using another brand of filters).

 

[Loswr]

Is the XS-Pro's front-thread the same size as the F-Pro's, or is it smaller since the XS-Pro itself is thin? I'm just curious because if there's one thing I hate, it's a small profile front-thread which causes lens caps to have problems staying on (whether it be the old Canon models or the new "center-pinch" models). I've lost a couple of lens caps in the past because they couldn't stay on properly (using another brand of filters).

The XS-Pro thread has a lower profile, so there's a gap - but it's not big, I'd say about 0.75mm. The F-Pro has a gap, too, though its slightly smaller:

I've never had issues with caps popping off either filter, and I take lenses in and out of various bags a lot.

 

[entlassen]

Thanks for the clarification! I guess XS-Pro is the best option (price notwithstanding), since you get the thin profile and it still has front-threading.

I do wonder though, if you have an XS-Pro circular polarizer, whether the thin profile makes it more annoying to use, since it might make it more difficult for your hand to grasp/twist it.

 

[Loswr]

I do wonder though, if you have an XS-Pro circular polarizer, whether the thin profile makes it more annoying to use, since it might make it more difficult for your hand to grasp/twist it.

I wonder about that, as well - but they're probably fine. The F-Pro CPL is 7mm thick, the Slim is 5mm thick, and the XS-Pro is only 4mm thick. I have 77mm and 82mm Slim Käsemann CPL filters, which I bought before they came out with the XS-Pro CPL. The Slim ones rotate easily, even with the thin knurled ring. But, if you stack a Slim CPL onto another filter, it can be difficult to remove if it 's tightened down hard. If you ever plan to stack filters, you should have a set of filter wrenches in your bag (they're cheap, I have several sets so I can just leave them in several bags). The issue with the Slim CPL is you have to grab the lens-side ring, and it's pretty thin...and the XS-Pro might be even thinner.

 

[entlassen]

The F-Pro CPL is 7mm thick, the Slim is 5mm thick, and the XS-Pro is only 4mm thick.

Slim CPL is thicker than the XS-Pro CPL? That's sort of weird, since you mentioned the opposite was true for the Clear filters (i.e. F-Pro 5mm, XS-Pro 3.4mm, Slim 3mm).

 

[ahab1372]

Thanks for the clarification! I guess XS-Pro is the best option (price notwithstanding), since you get the thin profile and it still has front-threading.

I do wonder though, if you have an XS-Pro circular polarizer, whether the thin profile makes it more annoying to use, since it might make it more difficult for your hand to grasp/twist it.

Not an issue in my opinion. Yes there is less metal to hold on to, but absolutely doable. Even if two filters get stuck together a little but, I just wiggle them back and forth a few times until they magically come loose. I never needed more grip, nor filter wrenches.

 

[Loswr]

The F-Pro CPL is 7mm thick, the Slim is 5mm thick, and the XS-Pro is only 4mm thick.

Slim CPL is thicker than the XS-Pro CPL? That's sort of weird, since you mentioned the opposite was true for the Clear filters (i.e. F-Pro 5mm, XS-Pro 3.4mm, Slim 3mm).

Weird...but true. Also, FWIW while almost all B+W mounts including the F-Pro and XS-Pro CPL are brass, the Slim CPL is aluminum (they say 'for manufacturing reasons,' whatever that means). Brass is less prone to getting stuck. If I ever need to replace a CPL, I'll get the XS-Pro version - but I don't see the need to swap unless I break/lose one of my existing CPLs.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I see this warning in the item description for (A) on B&H's site:

This filter ring's outside diameter is slightly larger than the actual thread size, and because of this you may be unable to attach the lens manufacturer's bayonet-mounted lens hood to the lens while using this filter. This is dependent on your specific lens and how thick the front rim of the lens is; with thinner, low-profile lenses usually being affected more.

Does this lens hood problem affect the 82mm XS-Pro on the 24-70 f/2.8 II? And is this a problem with the 77mm XS-Pro on the 70-200 f/2.8 II?

2) Ignore the 'warning'. I've got XS-Pro filters in many sizes, no issues with hoods.

+1