82mm filter suggestion for Canon's 16-35 f/2.8 II

[sankars]

<p>Hello,<br>

Could you recommend a good quality 82mm UV and Polarizing filter to go with Canon's 16-35 f/2.8 II. I am looking to use the lens on 1.6x and full-frame cameras. I am considering Hoya and B+W.<br>

Thank you for any help.</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>B&W.....highest quality optically flat Schott glass.</p>

[sankars]

<p>Thanks Tom..<br>

As B+W has more than one choice for both UV and CPL, could someone recommed me a good choice that is neither insanely expensive nor compromises with the image quality. Thanks </p>

[bjscharp]

UV filter: B+W 82mm MRC UV (010).

 

CPL: If you plan to use it in bad weather, get the Kaesemann version, otherwise go for the `normal' MRC version.

 

If you plan to use the lens on film/fullframe at 16mm, a `slim' version might be advisable for the CPL, but I wouldn't bother with the UV.

[sankars]

<p>Thanks Scharp. Curious why you wouldnt worry about non-slim UV filter on a full-frame ? Wouldn't it cause vignetting ?<br>

And how is the Kaeserman related to weather ?</p>

[bjscharp]

Because of the big (82mm) filter size, normal thickness filters don't cause visible vignetting on the 16-35. CPL filters are thicker though, so they might (though I don't speak from experience, best way is to test it: stack two filters, set lens wide-open at 16mm and shoot a blank wall with and without filters at the same exposure settings)

 

As for the second question: CPL filters are two layers of glass with polarizing film sandwiched in between. Under very extreme conditions, with normal filters, moisture might get between the two layers, and render the filter useless.

 

B+W Kaeseman filters are made with special cement between the layers to prevent this from happening.

 

Note though that I got that from the marketing speak from B+W. I also have normal filters that I've used in the rain on occasion, and I've never had problems. But if you want to make sure...

[sankars]

<p>Great. Thank you so much , Scharp ! :) </p>