Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: CPL Filter: Thin versus 'normal' ?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    116

    CPL Filter: Thin versus 'normal' ?

    Hi
    A local guy is offering me his CPL bought in 2007 and only used the summer that year.
    It's a B+W 77mm CPL Thin NOT multicoated.

    now I asking, what is the THIN ? That is the first time I hear this,
    is there any difference or advantage of having a 'thin' CPL versus the 'normal' sized CPL ?
    And is it worth buying this one even if it is not multicoated?
    I hear B+W is a very good brand, plus for the multicoating criteria, I never saw any difference in the UV filters,
    is it different for CPLs?

    Thanks!

  2. #2

    Re: CPL: Thin versus 'normal' ?

    Perhaps do you have anything on this:

    http://community.dcmag.co.uk/forums/thread/821160.aspx

  3. #3
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,295
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    Re: CPL: Thin versus 'normal' ?

    There's a recent thread here somewhere, no time to find now, but the short answer is probably: if you hold it up sideways, how thick is the framework.
    Thin ones will be safer on WA lenses as less chance of vignetting.
    For a telephoto lens, it won't matter.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: CPL: Thin versus 'normal' ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zephyrize View Post
    Hi
    A local guy is offering me his CPL bought in 2007 and only used the summer that year.
    It's a B+W 77mm CPL Thin NOT multicoated.
    Thin is indeed "thinner" - thus less vignetting with WA lenses. With many brands it also usually means "no front threads", so if your stacking fiters then the CPL will be the last in line.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    116

    Re: CPL: Thin versus 'normal' ?

    in addition of the absence of front threads,
    I also heard that I won't be able to put the lens cap...
    please tell me it's a joke, at least with a reputable brand like BW.

    and what about the coating, does it really make that of a difference ?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: CPL: Thin versus 'normal' ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zephyrize View Post
    in addition of the absence of front threads,
    I also heard that I won't be able to put the lens cap...
    please tell me it's a joke, at least with a reputable brand like BW.
    It's the front threads that the caps normally grip (although you can get other sorts). Having just said that, personally, I wouldn't be leaving the CP filter on all the time (it'll cost you 2 stops for a start).

    and what about the coating, does it really make that of a difference ?
    Multi-coated is standard practice for UVs these days, but I'm not sure what current state-of-the-art is with CPs (I don't think my Heliopans are SH-PMC) (Their equivalent). Why don't you just grab them - see how you go - and if you don't like them, on sell them!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •