Filter Question...Need some specific insight

I bought a B+W 82mm slim polarizer filter sometime last year and I am running into problems using it with the type of photography that I do now. To be more specific I shoot interiors for a living where I'm required to shoot into bright lights and directly into bright windows. This filter is not the multi coated version where I saved a few bucks and it works great when I'm not shooting directly into a bright light source. My question is would the multi-coated version give me much better results where the non mc filter is giving me lens flare and circles that distort the color and contrast. I know the quick solution is to not shoot at these angles but there is no way around it as certain shots have to be taken during the day per the rules. So far my 16-35 II lens without the filter does a pretty good job of controlling this but having the polarizer filter on helps control many of the reflections seen on the art work and furniture. If the more expensive MC filter would cut out the flare and ghosting effects then I'll have to spring for the 200 plus dollar filter where my mint condition non multicoated filter have to go up for sale.

I'm honestly unsure how much it would help, but I think it'd be worth a shot.

Hi Freelanceshots,


I may be telling you something that you already know, but my understanding is that one of the upgrades with MRC is that they place multiple coatings on both sides of filter; front and back. Without the coating on the back side of the filter (or with a single coat), light can bounce off the first element of the lens and then be reflected off the back side of the filter. Multiple coatson the backside of the filter helps minimize these reflections which sound very similar to what you are describing. Also, I haven't been able to verify this morning, but Irecall from when I looked into MRC lenses that light could also be reflected off the CCD/CMOS sensor to cause this issue.


I hope that helps,


Brant

In theory, the multi-resistant coating would help. B+W state in their catalog that the multi-coating, "does indeed enhance image quality significantly, especially with high-contrast subjects and when a light source (like the sun or a light bulb) is visible in the picture."


Of course, I suspect you know the theory and were hoping for more practical insights... So, I grabbed a couple of quick shots before heading into work this morning. Since bright windows are hard to come by at 5:31am, I shot directly into an LED Maglite. The best comparison would be between a standard vs. multicoated CPL, but since I don't have both, I used a B+W ND 103 (0.9/3-stop) - that and my B+W 10-stop are my only non-MRC filters - and a SlimK&auml;semann CPL (which has the MRC coating). Shots were with a 5DII and EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS. I used f/8 to allow a combination of ghosting, flare, and aperture-blade starbursting. To bring up the flare, I shot +2 EC and pushed another 0.5 stops in DPP (which was the only PP on the images). The only difference in exposure was shutter speed to compensate for the differing filter factors.



B+W ND 103 (non-MRC)
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/Flare_2D00_ND.JPG[/img]



B+WSlimK&auml;semann CPL (MRC)
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/Flare_2D00_KSMCPL.JPG[/img]


The non-MRC ND filter has a little more flare - especially noticeable are the second (large) and third spots moving away from the light at 4 o'clock. The more distant flare spots are only very slightly fainter with the MRC coating. The ghosting is also appears a little fainter with the MRC coating, while the starbursts seem unaffected. Note that you can also see the effect of the CPL in eliminating the reflection at the bottom of the 5 on the clock. As a side note, theK&auml;semann CPL doesn't look any different in terms of flare effects from the MRC UV filter I keep on the lens, and neither look much different from no filter.


So, the MRC coating makes a modest difference, at least in this simple and contrived test.


Hope that helps...let us know what you decide to do!


--John

There is a noticeable difference, and that

That was very helpful. Thank you for taking your time to do that demonstration. That gives me some real world information. Also I was using a Hoya Digital Pro 1 MC protection filters where its states on the Hoya site that this filter offers a DMC - Digital Multi-Coated feature. Now I honestly don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freelanceshots

I shoot interiors for a living where I'm required to shoot into bright lights and directly into bright windows.

---

Are you sure that the polarizer is necessary for all the interior shots? I'm sure you thought of that already, but as Captain Obvious, I must point it out. [:D]


Another possibility (obvious again) is to bring the ambient light levels up closer to the outdoors via flash. Then there wont be nearly so much flare.

After seeing Neuro's test I remembered that I had aCanon UV filter that I could compare to my B+W MRC filter. I originally bought the canon filter with my EFS-15-85 because canon wouldn't put their name on anything but the best, right [:P]. Anyways, I am very glad to have TDP site and these forums because I upgraded to the B+W MRC very quickly.


So last night emulated Neuro's test adnI tried the different filters (an no filter) aimed at a recessed light in my kitchen and at a flash light in the kitchen with all the lights on (more on that at the end). Here are the results:


With the canon UV filter


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-test/Direct-Light_2D00_Canon-Glass-Filter.JPG[/img]


With the B+W MRC filter


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-test/Direct-light_2D00_B_2B00_W-MRC.JPG[/img]


With no filter


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-test/Direct-light_2D00_no-UV-filter.JPG[/img]


I also tried looking at the light at more of an angle:


With Canon UV Filter


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-test/Angled-Light_2D00_Canon-Glass-Filter.JPG[/img]


With B+W MRC filter


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-test/Angled-Light_2D00_B_2B00_W-MRC.JPG[/img]


With no filter


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-test/Angled-Light_2D00_no-UV-Filter.JPG[/img]


I didn't upload the pictures, but relevant to what Daniel just posted, I also tried shooting at a maglight but with all the ambient lights in my kitchen on and usingthe flash mounted on the 7D. Under those conditions, I didn't see a difference betweenthe filters, which would support Daniel'spost. BTW, their seem to be benefits to being Captain Obvious...I had to run a test....[:)]

Me and the other photographers that do this work travel with specific equipment where we have a pretty fast paced schedule. I use a flash, full power just to soften the shadows and at f/16 you would need multiple high power strobes to over power the outside light plus that would over power the interior lights which need to appear on as well. Big flashs or strobes inside creates obvious strong directional shadows where you can usually see that in your images and thats not what the company I work for wants. I Don't always use/need the polarizer filter inside but it can really improve the pictures as the furniture and artwork just turn white from the reflections of the outside light. There are other ways to approach these types of things but I'm set on a pretty demanding schedule where there's just not enough time to spend hours in one area. So far I've done thousands of images like this but sometimes it just means more work in Photoshop which I'm trying to always shorten that time down.

I just want to say "bravo!" to all who jumped in to provide real user experiences. Fantastic to actually see the differences. Well done everyone.

Thanks for taking the time to shoot the stuff that you did. This can also give me an idea if its really worth spending the extra money on a MC filter since I don't own both types of filters. Where I see most of my problems is when the camera will be on a tripod at about chest level looking into a room or a scene pretty much directly in front of a window with 3 to 6 lamps scattered around inside. The bed is usually in front of the window with a nice bedspread, comforter and a decorative end blanket which is most often brightly colored. The round flare happens right on the decorative end blanket on the inside of the bed where the shadow falls. Its a very high contrast scene where my L lens even struggles to get a constant level of contrast and color plus the general area can get washed out as well. Another time that I see the flaring is when there are bright lights, floods, directional lights in the ceilings and there is no way to avoid getting these lights at the angles where they don't enter the lens even with the hood on. Also the main light source is usually a large window maybe five feet tall by anywhere from 4 feet to 6 feet wide and it will be the only window so its usually bright light entering an otherwise dark room.

I looked at the last photos that were shot of the light in the ceiling and the MRC filter and the non filter shots look almost identical. The non MC filter does show more problematic areas and more haze. Am I seeing this right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freelanceshots

I looked at the last photos that were shot of the light in the ceiling and the MRC filter and the non filter shots look almost identical. The non MC filter does show more problematic areas and more haze. Am I seeing this right?

---

That's my take. In my experience as well, B+W MRC vs. no filter doesn't look significantly different - that's why I pay $70-100 for each B+W UV filter. Also, it's not just the number of coatings - the quality of the coatings (and glass itself) makes a difference as well. A quick search on Amazon shows a "Zeikos 77mm Multi-Coated UV Filter" for $8 - I would bet that even a single-coated B+W filter would be much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freelanceshots

I looked at the last photos that were shot of the light in the ceiling and the MRC filter and the non filter shots look almost identical. The non MC filter does show more problematic areas and more haze. Am I seeing this right?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

That is what I am seeing too.


Regarding the MRC vs "no UV filter": At an angle, I actually think the picture is a bit better with the MRC filter (less haze at the top lip), but for all intents and purposes, they are the same. Going straight into the light thepicturesare alsovery similar. The differences may be due to a slight angle change (note the corner of the shelf and some of the patterns in the ceiling) due to my less than professional test. But with the MRC I notice afaint partialhalo just beneath the light and just slightly more "haze" to the top left of the light.


But getting back to your point, to me, the canon UV filter (no MC)really stands out as significantly worse while I'd consider the B+W MRC and the "no UV filter" pictures to essentially be the same.

Thanks for the help and responses. I appreciate it. Next is to buy one of these super expensive, mack daddy B + W pol filters and try it side by side to the other one. I

If you don

I thought about that but did not see at B&amp;H or Adorama if B+W makes a slim mount 82mm linear polarizer. I just looked where I did not see one. Shopping for filters at these online stores it kind of confusing. They have all these filters with many different prices where some say coated glass, some say multicoated glass, some say MRC coated glass and they all are Kaesemann. Then there is the thin glass and then there is the wide angle slim mount and then the regular mount. How do you know what you

Just looked at B&amp;H again and the offer a B+W 82mm Kaeseman Linear Polarizer Glass Filter (Extra Wide) for $244.00. Can

I wish I could be more help, but I can

if you don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freelanceshots

Can't find or understand what the explanation for the term Extra Wide means. From what I've understood in the past the slim mount is the one for really wide angle glass

---

B+W mounts are as follows:

• Standard (aka F-Pro) - 5 mm thick, has front threads (standard CPL is 8 mm thick)
• XS-Pro - 3.4 mm thick, has front threads
• Slim - avoids vignetting by being thin, 3 mm thick, no front threads (Slim CPL is 5 mm thick)
• Extra Wide - (referred to as oversize in the B+W handbook, but EW on the B+W web catalog), avoids vignetting by having larger diameter glass, 5 mm thick (I think), has front threads, filter glass is wider than lens thread (e.g. a 77mm oversized filter will have 77mm threads on the lens end, but the filter glass, and the front threads, will be 82mm).

So, the slim mount will generally do a good job at preventing vignetting, but the extra wide filter will do an even better job and is useful in cases where even a Slim filter would cause vignetting. I don't think you'd need an extra wide for any Canon lens, more likely for a wide angle medium format lens or a view camera.


Regarding the various types (and prices) of polarizing filters, the linear polarizers are always cheaper than the circular polarizers within a given mount size and optical quality. Mount sizes increase in price from standard to slim to extra wide. Optical quality increases in price from non-MRC to MRC toK&auml;semann. There are some gaps (e.g. none of the linear polarizers have the MRC coating). There's often a big jump from standard/slim to extra-wide, because the EW filters have larger diameter glass which adds a lot to the cost.


There's a description of their mounts, except the XS-Pro which is somewhat new, and more information including tables of which filters are available in which sizes and mounts, in the B+W Filter Handbook.

That's every thing I need to know. Thank you for the answers to my questions. I can now make a more informed buying decision.


So you think in your opinion that the EW version in 82mm is overkill for the 5D2 and 16-35mm combination. The Slim mount filter should be what I need and be a little less expensive then the EW.

Glad to help!


I think you'd be ok with a Slim CPL - you might get a small amount of vignetting, though. Looking back over my post, I was thinking primarily of the UV filters, not CPLs. I don't have a 16-35mm to test (yet), nor an 82mm Slim CPL (although I will likely get one, since it will be useful on the TS-E 24mm I just got). Previously, I did some testing on filter mount thickness and vignetting on the EF-S 10-22mm (16-35mm FF equivalent angle of view). For the 10-22mm at 10mm, I could stack 8.4mm of filters (thicker than a standard CPL) with no mechanical vignetting. Of course, The EF-S lens is f/3.5 at the wide end, not f/2.8, and it's a smaller image circle, so it's not directly equivalent. I do notice that Bryan's vignetting results show a comparison of the 16-35mm II with no filter and with a B+W standard mount UV filter. There is a very small effect on vignetting (look at the EV line positions, not the overall brightness of the images, since the exposures appear a little different). Since the standard F-Pro mount is the same thickness as the Slim CPL, I'd expect you'd see similar results.


--John