B+W or Hoya Polariser

[mdr]

Can't seem to make up my mind between a B+W MRC and Hoya Pro-1 Polariser. Can anyone shed any light on the difference picture quality between these two filters using a 17-40 f4 L and a 100-400 L IS on a 20D?
Thanks,
Marc.

[CoolToolGuy]

For those two lenses, either should be okay. I don't know which B+W you are considering, but the 'thin' B+Ws don't have a front filter thread, which means you can't use the normal lens cap. The Pro-1 has both - thin, plus a front thread.

I use mainly B+W, but I stay away from their thin ones for that reason. They give you a plastic slip-over cap, but they fall off when the temperature goes up.

The EF-S lenses make the Pro-1 a more viable option, since they are designed for the 1.6 bodies. But the 17-40 and 100-400 should be okay with either.

Have Fun,

[DaveG]

Can't seem to make up my mind between a B+W MRC and Hoya Pro-1 Polariser. Can anyone shed any light on the difference picture quality between these two filters using a 17-40 f4 L and a 100-400 L IS on a 20D?
Thanks,
Marc.

It looks like the principle advantage of the Hoya is that it's very slim to defeat any vignetting problems that you might have with superwide angle lens. None of the lenses that you have now would vignette with a non-slim Polarizing filter. Still, the day that you get a 10-22 might come, so the small upcharge for a slim Polarizer might look like a bargain then. Of course a slim filter will work just fine on a regular lens although it'll cost a bit more.

Each manufacturer is going to claim that their filters are the best and the brightest and you can take that info any way you'd like. Optically I'd say that Brand name filters are all the same, so I'd like to suggest that you have a look at a Nikon Polarizing filter besides the two you mentioned. If they all pretty much do the same thing then price should be a big factor. The B&W (remarkably) is much cheaper than the Hoya, even when you choose the slim B&W, but the slim Nikon Polarizing filter is cheaper still. (I got these prices from the B&H site.)

I need to get a Polarizing filter too and had been leaning towards Canon. They make a circular 77mm P filter, but it's not slim and only a little bit less expensive than the Nikon. Since I have the 10-22 I do have to be concerned about the vignetting issue.

For price, optical performance and concern about vignetting I'm pretty sure that the Nikon Polarizing filter will be my choice.

[ripster]

B+W glass is superior!

[Scottes]

I have a thin polarizer and I hate the fact that it doesn't have threads for the cap.

[neil_r]

I use a Hoya SMC PRO 77mm excellent results on both the 17-40 & 100-400.


N

[CyberDyneSystems]

You won't get Vignette either way.. so go with a normal "thick" polarizer.

I understand that B&W is "the best" for glass,.. but I own a hoya polarizer and it seems to do the job.

[mdr]

Thanks for all the replies. Note all being said, but still haven't made up my mind.

Can someone expand on vignetting, in particular, does the B+W non-slimline polariser vignette on the EOS3 with 17-40mm L lens or 24-85mm lens?

The main reason why I'm considering these polarisers is for use when travelling light, particularly on planned trips this year to Africa and Middle America when volume/weight is important. I have a Lee filter system including a polariser at the moment, but do not want to carry the bulky Lee system on these trips.

Alternative to the 77mm polariser, I could purchase a 77-105mm stepping ring to allow straight mount of the Lee 105mm polariser on my 17-40mm L and, hopefully soon to have, 100-400mm L IS. I've found a source for the stepping ring, but can't seem to find one for a 105mm lens cap to go with this, defeating the purpose.

Does this make any sense?