Anybody ever heard of a B+W Clear filter?

I am going to be buying a 50L this week and, as usual, had planned to get a B+W UV filter for physical protection of the lens (as I've done for years and years!!). Anyways, the following filter was brought to my attention. I've never heard of this--it's a clear filter--NOT a UV!!-- with Multi-Coating which is supposed to protect the lens from dirt and water, etc. and make it easier to keep protected and clean.
(Also comes in a non-coated version, too.)
Any experience with or ideas about this filter?

http://www.schneiderop​tics.com/ecomm...D=671​&IID=5674
http://www.adorama.com​/BW72CM.html

My guess is that those are being produced for the digital scene. I used to always get the UV filters also, but that was in my film shooting era when a UV actually had an affect on the sencetivity of the film to UV rays.

The UV filter was originally designed to remove some of the visible blue light spectrum at higher altitudes. The higher you go up, the more visible blue is seen in your images unless you have this filter.

Many people here have commented how a UV filter is no longer necessary as the sensor has a low pass UV filter in front of it. When you are cleaning your sensor, you are actually cleaning this filter.

This, IMHO, is why there is now a Clear Filter - because UV is no longer necessary.

So, for those of you that fall into the false assumption that a filter is protecting your lens, unless you are in a sand or salt environment, this is not really true. You want to protect your lens? Use your lens hood and always be mindful where the lens' objective element is when you are wielding your camera...kinda like being mindful of where the muzzle of your rifle is located when shooting on the firing line!

Your naivety is refreshing. The sensor filter is an IR cutoff filter. UV cutoff is provided below that, and OP was asking about a "clear" (non-UV) filter in any case. A number of Canon's L lenses require a filter to maintain their weather-sealing. And there are many things other than salt or sand which can present dangers to your front element, and for which a hood is useless. Among them are small children or animals, prop (or jet) wash (or other high winds), and heavy undergrowth. I find all of those to be common in my photography interests.

This was not staged, nor was it planned:

Rally photographers always use filters, when the cars drift around corners pebbles fly everywhere and a hood won't protect against direct impact.

Whether UV or clear, same principal is to protect from scratches and from me when I clean the glass!

Vascilli wrote in post #7049646
Rally photographers always use filters, when the cars drift around corners pebbles fly everywhere and a hood won't protect against direct impact.

The majority do. I've got filters on all of my lenses and would never consider shooting a rally without one.

Vascilli wrote in post #7049646
Rally photographers always use filters, when the cars drift around corners pebbles fly everywhere and a hood won't protect against direct impact.

Er, and just how does 1mm of fragile glass stop a high-speed pebble from impacting your front element? Seems to me that all you're doing is adding a nice source of shrapnel.

It's Jon's fault I have one of those clear filters. I have a few L lenses that are 77mm and I bought one so I could feel more comfortable using them in windy weather. I risked going to the beach in 2007 with my 24-70. Had all 3 filters with me so I could get the sunset shots.

So, I also never knew this kind of filter existed until someone told me.

As already stated the need for a uv filter is lessened with digital sensors. This is the basis for the Hoya line of digital filters. They have been offering multi coated clear filters for awhile. B+W now is offering their xs pro line with a clear filter version. I have a Kenko Pro1 Digital on my 16-35 Mk2 lens to complete the weather-seal as recommended by Canon. As with multi coated filters, it also helps reduce flare. Otherwise, it does not affect my resultant images. If you are using filters for protection then the clear version makes sense and they are usually less expensive than the colored versions.

hollis_f wrote in post #7051112
Er, and just how does 1mm of fragile glass stop a high-speed pebble from impacting your front element? Seems to me that all you're doing is adding a nice source of shrapnel.

Did you see the test of the Hoya filters? They drop a metal ball on the filter and it does not break.

Vascilli wrote in post #7049646
Rally photographers always use filters, when the cars drift around corners pebbles fly everywhere and a hood won't protect against direct impact.

Neither will a filter in that scenario.

A lens front element is a fairly substantial piece of glass, a filter isn't. The filter is very thin so that it doesn't affect the path of light any more than necessary. Hence, filters break very easily, lenses don't.

Sure, if a large piece of stoneware comes barrelling at your lens at 80mph the element will get damaged. This will happen regardless of there being a filter present or not. The only difference will be having a broken filter as well as a broken lens.

It is possible that a filter will be an advantage with a precise size and type of stone. However anything that could actually damage the lens is also likely to break the filter. The resulting shower of sharp shards of glass into your front element will probably do more damage than the stone would have.

There is no right or wrong answer here. If you feel happier with filters on then use them, it's personal choice. I have never used them except when necessary for the effect (CPL, grads etc) and I take my cameras into some pretty dodgy environments. I have never had a front element damaged yet (a whole lens, yes, but a filter wouldn't have helped any of those). Looking at the shape of the filter thread on a couple of my lenses (distinctly non-circular due to impacts), those would have suffered from broken filters, had they been fitted, and that would likely have damaged the elements. As it is though, they keep on going.

I have heard about more lenses being damaged from scratches off broken filter glass, than those that have been 'saved' by filters. Most of the latter are simply cases where the filter has broken, in a situation where the element wouldn't have been damaged anyway.

To answer the OP's question though. UV filtration is unneccessary with digital cameras, all it does is a very light warming up of the light entering the lens. This was often a good thing with film cameras, which had no white balance and you needed to adjust colour temperature with filters, according to weather and light conditions. Digitals though can take care of WB themselves, either in-cam or later in PP, so a UV filter makes no difference.

The vast majority of people who buy a UV filter do so simply for 'protection', so that is the market the clear glass filters are aimed at. They have no affect other than to place a piece of glass in front of your lens.

Kris_2020 wrote in post #7051679
Did you see the test of the Hoya filters? They drop a metal ball on the filter and it does not break.

Doesn't surprise me. From some of the reports I've read about the amazing protective power of UV filters I'm expecting to hear that the miltary are replacing all the windows in their vehicles with it.

hollis_f wrote in post #7051795
Doesn't surprise me. From some of the reports I've read about the amazing protective power of UV filters I'm expecting to hear that the miltary are replacing all the windows in their vehicles with it.

They could use ND grads for a really cool look