# help with B+W UV filters



## mapgirl (May 4, 2013)

First of all, please, this is not a discussion of whether or not to use UV filters for lens protection.
I've got a new Canon 100mm macro lens for my Canon D60.  I want a really  good UV filter for it and I understand that B+W makes excellent  filters.  But they offer several kinds at several different prices.  The  explanations on Adorama B&H all make them seem the same.  Can  somebody please help explain the differences between them?


B + W 58mm XS-PRO UV Haze MRC (010M) Glass Filter

B + W 58mm Digital Pro UV (Ultra Violet) Haze Multi Coated (2C) Glass Filter #010

B + W 58mm MC (Multi Resistant Coating) Clear Glass Protection Filter, #007

B + W 58mm UV (Ultra Violet) Haze Multi Coated (2C) Glass Filter #010

Thanks!


----------



## Derrel (May 4, 2013)

The more-expensaive filters with the MRC, which I believe is their Multi Resistant Coating, are easier to CLEAN. And a bit more resistant to water-spotting, in my experience.

I have a few B+W 010 filters in 77mm, and they were 'spensive. I seldom use them, except in the spring when the trees are dripping airborne sap (like they are right NOW...zOMG, my windshield this AM was a MESS!!!!!!!! A fine,fine film of airborne tree sap was all over the freakin thing!)

Anyway..."some filters" used to be very difficult to clean, and lens tissue, T-shirts, whatever, would just SMEAR around and around and around in a vicious Catch-22 pattern...this is what the newer filter coatings have improved upon...ease of cleaning, and resistance to water-droplet pattern formation.

B+W filters are high-end...I would go with a low-priced B+W over the other "cheap-o" companies' (plural) highest-grade filter. A mid-grade B+W 010 filter is a fine quality filter. Mine have held up well over 10 years, but have not been used "a lot".

A second thing: some filters are described as "*thin*" or thin-mount or thin-ring, and are not really suitable for "stacking" a second filter on the front of, and may also not allow cheap or old lens caps to fit on all that well. "thin" filters usually cost more. I do not think they are worth it except in certain circumstances.


----------



## kundalini (May 4, 2013)

I run with B+W and Hoya filters.  I can't really compare them apples to apples because each one is a different size or purpose, but both are good.  If I were looking for a front filter for "protection" (which I don't do), I would look for a clear glass rather than UV.  Modern sensors already have a UV filter, so an additional is moot.

With B+W, I would look at the MRC Nano coat ($63) and for Hoya, the Pro 1 Multi-Coated series ($35).

Always protect your lens by attatching the lens hood and using good common sense.


----------



## Ilovemycam (May 4, 2013)

I use the basic UV BW. I read the muilti coating is delicate. I'm rough on my gear. Basic works fine for me.


----------



## kundalini (May 4, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> I read the muilti coating is delicate.



Out of interest, please link your sources.


----------



## Josh66 (May 4, 2013)

All of mine have the MRC coating.  I've never had a problem with it wearing off...  I'm not obsessive about cleaning though.  I pretty much only clean my lenses/filters when they get a fingerprint on them - and that usually only happens when one of the kids gets into my camera bag, lol.


----------



## mapgirl (May 6, 2013)

Thank you all for your input!  I decided on B+W 58mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M) .  It was only $31.50 on Amazon.  And for those out there who roll their eyes at using filters for lens protection, I completely respect your decision.  But I shoot in dirt, in gardens, with stray branches (with spines and thorns) brushing past or right at my lenses.  Yes, I always use a lens hood, but without a filter, I was getting way too cautious.  And the filter I'd originally bought was too cheaply made and was indeed affecting my images.


----------



## Derrel (May 6, 2013)

I think you ought to be A-okay with the B+W 010 filter; B+W's filters are highly regarded. I would caution you though that when shooting toward bright light sources, the flat surface of a UV or protective filter can, and often does, create a reflection that the curved front element of a lens will often NOT have a problem with. Like, for instance, I shot my young son and his mother in front of multiple candles in a darkish room...a pretty common birthday scenario...and the B+W 010 filter on a Nikon 70200 VR zoom caused a bunch of flares...two for each candle flame...

I think that shooting right toward light sources is one of the most common scenarios in which the presence of a filter is actually likely to create a genuine, real, noticeable degradation of the image; in the majority of normal situations, I do not think a high-quality filter causes any significant negative impact on the image. So, on sunsets, and other toward-the-light shooting, I think removing the filter might be a good standard operating procedure.


----------



## mapgirl (May 6, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I think you ought to be A-okay with the B+W 010 filter; B+W's filters are highly regarded. I would caution you though that when shooting toward bright light sources, the flat surface of a UV or protective filter can, and often does, create a reflection that the curved front element of a lens will often NOT have a problem with. Like, for instance, I shot my young son and his mother in front of multiple candles in a darkish room...a pretty common birthday scenario...and the B+W 010 filter on a Nikon 70200 VR zoom caused a bunch of flares...two for each candle flame...
> 
> I think that shooting right toward light sources is one of the most common scenarios in which the presence of a filter is actually likely to create a genuine, real, noticeable degradation of the image; in the majority of normal situations, I do not think a high-quality filter causes any significant negative impact on the image. So, on sunsets, and other toward-the-light shooting, I think removing the filter might be a good standard operating procedure.



Thank you Derrel!   What great advice.  It wouldn't have occurred to me at all.


----------



## TCampbell (May 6, 2013)

Derrel said:


> A second thing: some filters are described as "*thin*" or thin-mount or thin-ring, and are not really suitable for "stacking" a second filter on the front of, and may also not allow cheap or old lens caps to fit on all that well. "thin" filters usually cost more. I do not think they are worth it except in certain circumstances.



B+W filters can come in F-PRO, XS-PRO, or SLIM.  F-PRO are standard size filter rings with threads on front to stack filters.  XS-PRO are a bit thinner but still have threads on front.  I haven't been fond of "thin" threads as I've seen lens caps fall off (there aren't many threads).  SLIM are their thinnest and designed for very wide angle lenses... but have _no_ threads on the front side of the filter, so you cannot stack another filter in front of a SLIM filter (when stacking it must be the front-most filter in the stack.)

See:  F-Pro_Mount.jpg XS_Mount.jpg Slim_Mount.jpg


----------

