B+W "Basic" filters vs. F-Pro

[AgX]

OK, that may be it. I hadn't seen that in the brochure that I found but I'll bet that was what they meant by that on older filters.

As I said above , at older filters B+W made no different coatings. And in their brochure coating is not even hinted at, but explicetely at E and ES as their thread pitch indicators.

 

[BrianShaw]

In 12/2021, this seems to be the nomenclature used in B+W's Übersicht Produktprogramm nach Filtertyp | Overview Product Range by Filter Type

E beidseitig einschicht vergütet | Single Coating on both sides
MRC beidseitig Multi Resistant Coating | Multi Resistant Coating on both sides
MRC nano beidseitig Multi Resistant Coating nano | Multi Resistant Coating on both sides nano

I'm not seeing any reference to uncoated filters, or different thread pitches. I don't doubt that these, and different uses of the letter E, existed in the past. Since B+W also isn't very good at dating their catalogues and handbooks, it is hard to tell how far back the current nomenclatures and product lines go. If I dig through my files I must have a variety of each that I downloaded over the years. EDIT: I looked through my files and found a 2010 B+W document with this as the E nomenclature, so it goes back at least a dozen years.

The lens caps (page 54 of hte HANDBOOK)... perplexing... wouldn't be surprised if written by a marketing person is just as confused about the B+W nomenclature as are we!

Last year I went through the same puzzlement. All I wanted was a skylight-type filter and ran into all sorts of confusion. What I bought was marked 67E (seems to be single coated and a soft coating too) in a F-pro mount (deducing from the mount pictures/descriptions). I made sure I bought it at a good enough price that even though I wasn't completely sure of what I bought, I wouldn't feel "burned" if it didn't work out.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can not for the life of me wonder why we all seem to need the 'finest' filters. To get them will cost a lot of money and I ask for our use is it actually necessary. I have only two multicoated filters in my stock and in normal use I fail to see any difference unless I deliberately include direct sun in the view. In fact for B&W I use Cokin acrylic 'P' range and have never found them to be any worse or indeed better than the top of the range pale yellow 62mm and a 77mm UV from B&W.
Yes there will be differences, but for the amateur user which I and almost certainly a good number of others on the forum use them will they really be able to tell the difference?

The better filters are often the only B60 mounts available and if one is using a Hasselblad then the better coatings with the B60 mount is a plus.

 

[BMbikerider]

I guess it depends on the lenses you use with the filters. It seems a waste to put a questionable filter on a good Leica, Schneider or Zeiss lens. You paid big bucks for the lens quality, why compromise it? There is also the question of consistency, so you know you will be getting the same effect from different size filters of the same color. Oh, and have you ever had the joy of removing a stuck filter? Happens less with the better ones.

I only use mainly Nikon Zoom Lenses and those with a known good reputation, these happen to have constant aperture. The only lens that is not Nikon is a 90mm F2.8 Tamron macro which is itself beyond reproach. I have never had a problem of removing a filter! I just don't screw them on too tightly!

Going back to quality, I seriously doubt very much if we can tell the difference between a 'normal' or a 'super duper top of the range MC' filter in normal photography. That could, I will argue would only be visible on an optical bench. Camera shake (even on a tripod) or poor AF will have more affect.

 

[BMbikerider]

The better filters are often the only B60 mounts available and if one is using a Hasselblad then the better coatings with the B60 mount is a plus.

I don't own a Hassie so that is purely academic. I would rather spend my cash on film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't own a Hassie so that is purely academic. I would rather spend my cash on film.

You should have been buying 15 years ago when all the cameras were cheaper even Hasselblad.

 

[AgX]

I'm not seeing any reference to uncoated filters, or different thread pitches. I don't doubt that these, and different uses of the letter E, existed in the past.

There is explocite, repeateed referrbce to uncoated filters in their current product overview, to be found at their site, and this s the document that tells what is actually available.

Explicite reference to the E and ES meaning and pitches is done at a brochure, actually the most extensive one of theirs, when they still had a substantial range of filters.

 

[BrianShaw]

There is explocite, repeateed referrbce to uncoated filters in their current product overview, to be found at their site, and this s the document that tells what is actually available.

Sorry, but after looking 3 times I'm still not seeing either.

Here is, to the best of my knowledge, the latest product overview/list... are we looking at the same document?

https://schneiderkreuznach.com/appl...view_Product_Range_by_Filter_Type_12_2021.pdf

EDIT: Okay, in the B+W catalogue I downloaded in 2012 I saw a reference to uncoated filters, and on the product list there are some that do not have the code for either sing-coated or MRC. But that's not quite the current offerings. But this is nothing to be arguing over...

 

[AgX]

At this overview 3 filters are described as uncoated and listet under "Basic", together with 4 E-coated ones and with the MRC-coated ones.

 

[BrianShaw]

At this overview 3 filters are described as uncoated and listet under "Basic", together with 4 E-coated ones and with the MRC-coated ones.

Where; at the link I provided or somewhere else?. For neither love nor money I’m not seeing what you seem to see.

 

[BrianShaw]

At this overview 3 filters are described as uncoated and listet under "Basic", together with 4 E-coated ones and with the MRC-coated ones.

On second thought, let me borrow your quote: I give up…

 

[AgX]

Sleep about it Brian, and tomorrow have a 2nd look.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sleep about it Brian, and tomorrow have a 2nd look.

No thanks. Not interested any more. If you can’t more specifically explain to what you refer…

 

[mshchem]

I've bought several nice used filters from KEH. Nikon L37c for protection, Hoya (Japan) makes lovely filters. Of late I've been buying new B&W MRC, no nano coating, I've heard that the final nano coating to resist dirt and water is not as hard, easier to damage. I have no idea if this is true.

 

[AgX]

Under my used ones I got one with some sort of repellant coating and this is utmost hard to wipe clean as I am used to do. I prefer the classic ones. A finger print is much more likely for me than water droplets. As even with a waterrepellant surface a shade against rain droplets is the optically better solution.
But there may be situations were such repellant makes sense.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Note that on that linked Schneider/B&W list, ALL of the remaining black and white contrast filters are of one type only - basic MRC. But that certainly doesn't mean other styles and colors weren't previously made.
I have actual examples of the same B&W color and size in both single-coated and MRC versions. Both style coatings are somewhat soft. The same chart shows 8-layer allegedly tougher multi-coating as an option only for basic protective and UV filters. But then a new can of worms was opened by linking to a red 8-layer filter on the B&H site; but that might very well be because it's a deep red classified under infrared usage, which constitutes another distinct exception.

If it's such a big deal, just contact someone over there. The official US distributor might not list all the options.

 

[BMbikerider]

You should have been buying 15 years ago when all the cameras were cheaper even Hasselblad.

#
I didn't want one then and don't want one now. I was/am quite happy with my 35mm and Bronica SQA the quality difference between a Hassie and Bronica is miniscule. As for being cheaper I bought my SQa, 40mm,50mm, 80mm, 150mm and 250mm plus 2x extender and a couple of extra 6x6 backs for a lot less than similar Hassie items. No contest, I am not an equipment collector of shiny trinkets, all SQ bits are used.

I don't print larger than 12x16 and even 35mm is well capable of that so any SQa lens V Hassie lens will be absolutely indistinguishable.

 

[faberryman]

I wonder if the red filter Ansel Adams used for Monolith: The Face of Half Dome was brass and multi-coated? Remember the good old days when you went into a camera store and had a choice between Hoya, Tiffen, and an off-brand like Prinz, and without consulting the Oracle of Delphi you picked one, and then just went about making photos without all the angst and handwringing? I swear the internet has made us all neurotic. You know you are in trouble when you meet another photographer and sort of nonchalantly glance down at his camera and take note of the filter brand he uses, and then, if you use the same brand, you give him the secret handshake. Wait...I just checked and a Leica E39 UV filter runs $145. I have no idea what the "E" before the thread size stands for. Probably "expensive".

 

[mtnbkr]

I wonder if the red filter Ansel Adams used for Monolith: The Face of Half Dome was brass and multi-coated? Remember the good old days when you went into a camera store and had a choice between Hoya, Tiffen, and an off-brand like Prinz, and without consulting the Oracle of Delphi bought one, and then just went about making photos without all the angst and handwringing? I swear the internet has made us all neurotic. You know you are in trouble when you meet another photographer and sort of nonchalantly glance down at his camera and take note of the filter brand he uses.

The Internet and digital photography as well (this is not an anti-digital statement, I shoot both myself). The latter makes it trivial to really zoom in on an image and analyze it to death rather than standing at a normal distance and appreciating it for what it is.

Chris

 

[BrianShaw]

I wonder if the red filter Ansel Adams used for Monolith: The Face of Half Dome was brass and multi-coated? Remember the good old days when you went into a camera store and had a choice between Hoya, Tiffen, and an off-brand like Prinz, and without consulting the Oracle of Delphi you picked one, and then just went about making photos without all the angst and handwringing? I swear the internet has made us all neurotic. You know you are in trouble when you meet another photographer and sort of nonchalantly glance down at his camera and take note of the filter brand he uses, and then, if you use the same brand, you give him the secret handshake. Wait...I just checked and a Leica E39 UV filter runs $145. I have no idea what the "E" stands for. Probably "expensive".

I believe he used a Kodak wratten gelatin filter. Not sure if it was 3-inch or 4-inch, though. Perhaps we can get together with a Ouija board to get a clear answer.

 

[faberryman]

I believe he used a Kodak wratten gelatin filter. Not sure if it was 3-inch or 4-inch, though. Perhaps we can get together with a Ouija board to get a clear answer.

No Ouija board required. I am sure you are correct. My question was rhetorical in nature.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I can not for the life of me wonder why we all seem to need the 'finest' filters. To get them will cost a lot of money and I ask for our use is it actually necessary. I have only two multicoated filters in my stock and in normal use I fail to see any difference unless I deliberately include direct sun in the view. In fact for B&W I use Cokin acrylic 'P' range and have never found them to be any worse or indeed better than the top of the range pale yellow 62mm and a 77mm UV from B&W.
Yes there will be differences, but for the amateur user which I and almost certainly a good number of others on the forum use them will they really be able to tell the difference?

Why would you put a cheap filter in front of an expensive lens?

 

[AgX]

Why use a cheap film in a Leica?
What matters is the outcome. Why paying for something without effect on your photos?

One may buy an expensive lens for its focal length or its large aperture. In this regard the filter has no effect.


Why is not a commercial grade Durst enlarger advised here as the standard for a darkroom?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Why use a cheap film in a Leica?
What matters is the outcome. Why paying for something without effect on your photos?

One may buy an expensive lens for its focal length or its large aperture. In this regard the filter has no effect.


Why is not a commercial grade Durst enlarger advised here as the standard for a darkroom?

You get what you pay for.

 

[AgX]

And you buy what you need.