Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
B+W filter on Amazon... hopefully genuine
#1
I've spent four days in the Alps - fantastic for landscape and flowers. I wasn't going to focus on wildlife, mostly because I also wanted to relax - if you have too many expectations for just a few days, it's going to become as a sort of job.

But, unexpected, I had the chance to see a fox predating a marmot, at a relatively close distance, well within the range of the Sigma 150-600mm. I hadn't use it for months, but it was in its place in the larger bag, with all the needed padding. Unfortunately, when I mounted it on the camera I realized that the protective UV filter was broken - a threefold crack originating from a single point on the border, probably a relatively small hit but with the proper orientation to maximize the damage. The glass didn't fall apart, so no problems with fragments, but in any case the time required to unscrew the filter made me miss the shot.

Anyway, so far it was just a divagation. Glad that the filter absorbed the hit and the lens was ok, I ordered a replacement B+W filter at Amazon. What surprised me is that I found different versions (same size, 95mm, but different names)...


https://www.amazon.it/Filtro-B-W-filtro-...Bw+uv+95mm
 
https://www.amazon.it/66-045110-Ultravio...Bw+uv+95mm
 
https://www.amazon.it/95-Clear-MRC-007M/...Bw+uv+95mm

... at very different prices: 65+10€, 119€, 143€. I bought the previous one at eBay's for 85€. I suppose that the different prices are mostly to the fact that one is the MRC, a new version with improved multi-coating. Since I didn't have problems with the old model, I bought the cheaper one (the point is that there's some sort of disgrace with this filter, as it was already a replacement because the very first bought one was dropped and broken - so I really wanted to save some money).

My doubt is whether the cheaper is a fake one. The vendor is from Germany, so there should be no problem... but do you think I'll need to run a sharpness test to be sure that it's an original one?

Thanks.
stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#2
(06-20-2018, 08:40 PM)stoppingdown Wrote: I've spent four days in the Alps - fantastic for landscape and flowers. I wasn't going to focus on wildlife, mostly because I also wanted to relax - if you have too many expectations for just a few days, it's going to become as a sort of job.

But, unexpected, I had the chance to see a fox predating a marmot, at a relatively close distance, well within the range of the Sigma 150-600mm. I hadn't use it for months, but it was in its place in the larger bag, with all the needed padding. Unfortunately, when I mounted it on the camera I realized that the protective UV filter was broken - a threefold crack originating from a single point on the border, probably a relatively small hit but with the proper orientation to maximize the damage. The glass didn't fall apart, so no problems with fragments, but in any case the time required to unscrew the filter made me miss the shot.

Anyway, so far it was just a divagation. Glad that the filter absorbed the hit and the lens was ok, I ordered a replacement B+W filter at Amazon. What surprised me is that I found different versions (same size, 95mm, but different names)...


https://www.amazon.it/Filtro-B-W-filtro-...Bw+uv+95mm
 
https://www.amazon.it/66-045110-Ultravio...Bw+uv+95mm
 
https://www.amazon.it/95-Clear-MRC-007M/...Bw+uv+95mm

... at very different prices: 65+10€, 119€, 143€. I bought the previous one at eBay's for 85€. I suppose that the different prices are mostly to the fact that one is the MRC, a new version with improved multi-coating. Since I didn't have problems with the old model, I bought the cheaper one (the point is that there's some sort of disgrace with this filter, as it was already a replacement because the very first bought one was dropped and broken - so I really wanted to save some money).

My doubt is whether the cheaper is a fake one. The vendor is from Germany, so there should be no problem... but do you think I'll need to run a sharpness test to be sure that it's an original one?

Thanks.

Well, an F-Pro is an MRC-filter, it even says so in the description.

However, on the inside, opposite F-Pro, it should have the imprint "B + W 95 010 UV - Haze 1x MRC", which the two other ones do have, so I would expect it to be a fake. And B+W filters are faked a lot too, I am afraid.

If it does not have the imprint, I would return it, to be very honest.

HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: 5D Mk II, a gaggle of primes, a lone zoom, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 14 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#3
I know that there are lots of B+W fakes, that's why I'm worried.

There is an imprint: F-PRO on the external ring, with MADE IN GERMANY and B+W logo, and "B + W 95 010 UV - Haze 1x E" - note, E in place of MRC - on the inner part.
stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#4
How much is a decent UV-filter? How much is a front lens - of the Sigma 150-600 contemporary, so for sure no fluorite or diamonds or other expensive stuff.

And how much more shots you want to miss because of a tiny thin plate of glass which will likely break the next time it sees a pointy stone?

I bought two Sigma ceramic protectors ø 77, these are sitting at home just in case I ever remember them. I stay clear of "filter to protect my investment" - just because they are another investment and in most cases as expensive as the front element they have to protect. The front lens itself simply is thicker and more protective - and a lens hood will take more bumps and keep the stones and pointy elements in safe distance.
#5
LensRentals posted about that more than a year ago: while in the past the cost of front elements was comparable with filters, things have changed and replacing a front element has become really expensive:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12...revisited/
stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#6
It was already a bit at the careless edge: Even if the front element wouldn't cost more than the filter, there's labor costs, V.A.T. and shipping, instead of just screwing a filter on the lens.

But still, it's worth to point out: Filters only protect against small particles, add two extra surfaces and eventually also scratch the front lens when something cracks the filter. Which will happen more likely with a large lens I'm not used to use (I speak for me).

To me, the lens hood matters much more than a filter - I'm not travelling in sandstorms, do lots of pictures in the rain or close to sea waves. Big filter sizes are (to me) fake protection, like using a paper hat instead of a bicycle helmet. And I'm not very sensitive to a little scratch in the front lens - usually that will not affect my pictures. So, I keep my opinion that a filter doesn't reduce the risk enough to justify the costs - it's like gear insurance which annually costs as much as I can easily save to buy a replacement, plus the insurance company won't make it easy to get the money.
#7
(06-21-2018, 08:02 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: It was already a bit at the careless edge: Even if the front element wouldn't cost more than the filter, there's labor costs, V.A.T. and shipping, instead of just screwing a filter on the lens.

But still, it's worth to point out: Filters only protect against small particles, add two extra surfaces and eventually also scratch the front lens when something cracks the filter. Which will happen more likely with a large lens I'm not used to use (I speak for me).

To me, the lens hood matters much more than a filter - I'm not travelling in sandstorms, do lots of pictures in the rain or close to sea waves. Big filter sizes are (to me) fake protection, like using a paper hat instead of a bicycle helmet. And I'm not very sensitive to a little scratch in the front lens - usually that will not affect my pictures. So, I keep my opinion that a filter doesn't reduce the risk enough to justify the costs - it's like gear insurance which annually costs as much as I can easily save to buy a replacement, plus the insurance company won't make it easy to get the money.

Considering my own experiences, and that of a friend of mine who runs a camera store, I don;t agree.

A filter does protect the front lens for bumps and other stuff indeed. My friend regularly gets people coming into the store with damage to the lens or filter. When the lens has no filter, lens hood or not, it invariably has to be sent to the manufacturer to get repaired, which with the sub 500 € lenses generally is not worth the trouble, as it is cheaper to buy a good second hand lens. A filter not only protects the lens from a lot of debris floating/flying around, quite often it is also the seal required to weatherproof a lens, and the actual ring makes the lens mechanically stronger, so it can't bend, dent or buckle so easily. He has yet to see a front lens damaged by shards of glass from a broken filter in the 30+ years he has been in business.

A lens may still get damaged because of an impact, even when sporting a filter, but generally speaking that tends to be damage to the focusing mechanism etc., not to the optics per se, in about 20% of the cases. However, he reckons it would have been worse in most cases without a filter.

There is just one caveat: you need to use a good, multi-coated filter. A sensor reflects about 40% to 60% of the light, vs 2% to 3% from film back in the analog days, and especially when shooting in more complex light conditions, reflections and ghosting can actually destroy an image completely due to reflections of the inside of a cheaper, single coated or even one sided coated filter. In short, only buy the best multi-coated filter you can afford, clear or uv/haze. Speaking from experience here as well.

HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: 5D Mk II, a gaggle of primes, a lone zoom, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 14 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#8
"A lens may still get damaged because of an impact, even when sporting a filter"

Exactly! so you've answered your own question....... use a quality lens cap........for the most part they are cheap and unbreakable!

Lens-caps protect far better in the camera bag and lens-hoods in the wild.......
Dave's clichés
#9
(06-21-2018, 08:19 AM)wim Wrote: Considering my own experiences, and that of a friend of mine who runs a camera store, I don;t agree.

A filter does protect the front lens for bumps and other stuff indeed. My friend regularly gets people coming into the store with damage to the lens or filter. When the lens has no filter, lens hood or not, it invariably has to be sent to the manufacturer to get repaired, which with the sub 500 € lenses generally is not worth the trouble, as it is cheaper to buy a good second hand lens. A filter not only protects the lens from a lot of debris floating/flying around, quite often it is also the seal required to weatherproof a lens, and the actual ring makes the lens mechanically stronger, so it can't bend, dent or buckle so easily. He has yet to see a front lens damaged by shards of glass from a broken filter in the 30+ years he has been in business.

A lens may still get damaged because of an impact, even when sporting a filter, but generally speaking that tends to be damage to the focusing mechanism etc., not to the optics per se, in about 20% of the cases. However, he reckons it would have been worse in most cases without a filter.

There is just one caveat: you need to use a good, multi-coated filter. A sensor reflects about 40% to 60% of the light, vs 2% to 3% from film back in the analog days, and especially when shooting in more complex light conditions, reflections and ghosting can actually destroy an image completely due to reflections of the inside of a cheaper, single coated or even one sided coated filter. In short, only buy the best multi-coated filter you can afford, clear or uv/haze. Speaking from experience here as well.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Well, we agree on disagreeing Smile I also disagree with the reasoning of "a friend works in a store and gets regularly in contact with people with damaged front lenses or filter". Well, what do you do when you want to ask for repair? You go to the store. What do you do when everything is fine? Going to the store and tell them like "it's the 349th day without a scratch"?

Roger stated that of 20.000 lenses 15.000 never caused a problem. To stay in the picture with the store, 15.000 lenses were sold and just do their work, but 1/4 came back to the store (a high number... I think, people care much more about their own than about rented lenses).

If you take the filter protection seriously, you need to put a protection in front of every lens you own. He said 70-120 $ for good quality filter. I paid 100,- per Ø77 ceramic protector. Multiplied by around 25 lenses: How much front elements I can send in? Less than 25, because 3 of them (11, 14, 20) don't take filters and even if: it would be a kind of a dome with a lot new problems.

Then, the 14 mm fell to the floor and broke the fixed lens hood. The front element stayed unharmed. You know the weight of 14/1.8?

Usually, expensive filters don't harm the resolution. But under front light conditions they simply add another two surfaces to reduce contrast.

I like front light and I don't like protective filters that much. That's all I can say about the subject. Oh, and of course: Stoppingdowns story is an interesting example, even if it's a once in a lifetime incident. If Murphy is in his mood, the protective filter breaks and scratches also the front element. I know, some advertise their second hand glass with the not "UV filter was always on" and most of the time I think "sure it was - or at least, is now, at the sale photo"
#10
(06-21-2018, 09:12 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 08:19 AM)wim Wrote: Considering my own experiences, and that of a friend of mine who runs a camera store, I don;t agree.

A filter does protect the front lens for bumps and other stuff indeed. My friend regularly gets people coming into the store with damage to the lens or filter. When the lens has no filter, lens hood or not, it invariably has to be sent to the manufacturer to get repaired, which with the sub 500 € lenses generally is not worth the trouble, as it is cheaper to buy a good second hand lens. A filter not only protects the lens from a lot of debris floating/flying around, quite often it is also the seal required to weatherproof a lens, and the actual ring makes the lens mechanically stronger, so it can't bend, dent or buckle so easily. He has yet to see a front lens damaged by shards of glass from a broken filter in the 30+ years he has been in business.

A lens may still get damaged because of an impact, even when sporting a filter, but generally speaking that tends to be damage to the focusing mechanism etc., not to the optics per se, in about 20% of the cases. However, he reckons it would have been worse in most cases without a filter.

There is just one caveat: you need to use a good, multi-coated filter. A sensor reflects about 40% to 60% of the light, vs 2% to 3% from film back in the analog days, and especially when shooting in more complex light conditions, reflections and ghosting can actually destroy an image completely due to reflections of the inside of a cheaper, single coated or even one sided coated filter. In short, only buy the best multi-coated filter you can afford, clear or uv/haze. Speaking from experience here as well.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Well, we agree on disagreeing Smile I also disagree with the reasoning of "a friend works in a store and gets regularly in contact with people with damaged front lenses or filter". Well, what do you do when you want to ask for repair? You go to the store. What do you do when everything is fine? Going to the store and tell them like "it's the 349th day without a scratch"?

Roger stated that of 20.000 lenses 15.000 never caused a problem. To stay in the picture with the store, 15.000 lenses were sold and just do their work, but 1/4 came back to the store (a high number... I think, people care much more about their own than about rented lenses).

If you take the filter protection seriously, you need to put a protection in front of every lens you own. He said 70-120 $ for good quality filter. I paid 100,- per Ø77 ceramic protector. Multiplied by around 25 lenses: How much front elements I can send in? Less than 25, because 3 of them (11, 14, 20) don't take filters and even if: it would be a kind of a dome with a lot new problems.

Then, the 14 mm fell to the floor and broke the fixed lens hood. The front element stayed unharmed. You know the weight of 14/1.8?

Usually, expensive filters don't harm the resolution. But under front light conditions they simply add another two surfaces to reduce contrast.

I like front light and I don't like protective filters that much. That's all I can say about the subject. Oh, and of course: Stoppingdowns story is an interesting example, even if it's a once in a lifetime incident. If Murphy is in his mood, the protective filter breaks and scratches also the front element. I know, some advertise their second hand glass with the not "UV filter was always on" and most of the time I think "sure it was - or at least, is now, at the sale photo"

Smile
My friend actually is the owner of the store, and carries out lens repairs himself when he can Smile.

Obviously, not all lenses get returned with damage, but he does get people coming in with a damaged lens at least once a week. And I've seen the results too Smile.

And have you ever seen a broken filter scratch a lens? So far, I personally haven't. Besides, if a broken filter would scratch a lens, the impact by definition must have been so violent, that the lens would have been damaged regardless.

And as to front light conditions: did you actually test that?
My own test showed that with a really good filter transparency is even better Smile.

I have high quality "protection" filters on all of my lenses, barring the three that can't take them Smile.

Filters/no filters for protection always is a contentious issue, granted. However, since I had an accident with one of my lenses years ago where the filter actually protected the optics and focusing mechanism from damage, I will always use a protective filter if the lens allows me to do so. This lens set me back a month of my salary back in those days, I used it a lot, and as I am not a professional photographer, I was happy I had a filter mounted; it is entirely worth it to me Smile.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: 5D Mk II, a gaggle of primes, a lone zoom, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 14 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)