What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Hasselblad filters

S

ski542002

New Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2026
Messages
25
Hello: Will be ordering 2 XCD lenses shortly. I never cheap out on filters and have always purchased brass-threaded B+W, UV and Polascreens. The 72mm UV filters are pricey, at about $60 @. The Hasselblad UV filters are around $250 @. IS there any noticeable difference in optical quality from either brand of filter? I won't shoot any lens without a protective filter attached, so don't go there!
 
Where there is a notable difference between a cheap and expensive CPL filter, is in how dark it is (the EV penalty). The lowest EV penalty I have found, are the German B+W Kasemann filters but they are expensive in large sizes. The Pola + filters from Urth are a close second and considerably cheaper. I have bought Urth CPL filters for all 4 of my Hasselblad XCD lenses, 28P, 45P, 35-100, and 80/1.9. The longer the lens the more effective I find those filters to be, especially taking photos in lower latitudes, such as in Africa or the Caribbean, in the middle of the day, when the sun is high, where they noticeably increase contrast and saturation. Obviously they are also very effective in reducing polarised reflections from seawater or lake shots.
Wilson
 
Wilson, I appreciate your reply. I’ve only ever purchased B+W, including an 82mm PolaScreen, which was priced like I was taking out a loan on a new Ferrari! My 82mm B+W might be a Kaesmann. Just use many step up rings for all of my optics. Right now at least, kind of a moot point. Wish Hasselblad backorders were not so very painful!
 
I think the other point is that for most digital cameras, UV filters are unnecessary. Pretty much every digital camera has a UV/IR filter glass in front of the sensor. The only camera which omitted this was the Leica M8. It was quickly found out that this resulted in false colours, so that it became a requirement to use a UV/IR filter on the front of the lens. I have always avoided using filters wherever possible except for as I mentioned, in strong sunlight or water shots where I use a CPL or black and white film, where I will commonly use a yellow filter to enhance sky details. Filters can be a source of flare, spurious images and reflections from light bouncing between the flat sensor and flat filter glass. Because of the way that CPL filters work, this is minimised for them. When I used an M8, it was not uncommon to get pink circles in the sky from the UV/IR filter.
Wilson
 
I wish I didn't need a UV filter for XCD lenses, but their design, with the front element so close to the terminus of the lens means I need to either always use the lens hood or keep a UV filter on.

Honestly, through decades of using Leica cameras and lenses, with the aforementioned issue of the M8, I've never felt the need to use a UV filter. But then, on a trip to the desert in Utah, I scratched the front element of the SL24-70 lens that was to be traded in on my Hasselblad X2Dii kit. Merde! When I got to the camera store where my new camera and lenses were waiting for me, the 24-70 was deemed too damaged. As soon as I saw the way the XCD lenses are built, I immediately purchased UV filters.

Back to the question of whether the Hasselblad UV are necessary. I don't know, but I bought them anyway in the belief that I was investing in a whole new system, and it was worth protecting the image quality with the highest quality filter. It may or may not have been needed, given how good other filter brands are, including Urth and B+W.
 
I did take delivery of my X2D2 and 2, P lenses about six weeks ago. Purchased B+ W UV filters and one B+W Pola screen. Could not be more pleased with the results!
 
Johnbuckley100 said:
I wish I didn't need a UV filter for XCD lenses, but their design, with the front element so close to the terminus of the lens means I need to either always use the lens hood or keep a UV filter on.

Honestly, through decades of using Leica cameras and lenses, with the aforementioned issue of the M8, I've never felt the need to use a UV filter. But then, on a trip to the desert in Utah, I scratched the front element of the SL24-70 lens that was to be traded in on my Hasselblad X2Dii kit. Merde! When I got to the camera store where my new camera and lenses were waiting for me, the 24-70 was deemed too damaged. As soon as I saw the way the XCD lenses are built, I immediately purchased UV filters.

Back to the question of whether the Hasselblad UV are necessary. I don't know, but I bought them anyway in the belief that I was investing in a whole new system, and it was worth protecting the image quality with the highest quality filter. It may or may not have been needed, given how good other filter brands are, including Urth and B+W.
Click to expand...

I put a UV filter in front of all my lenses. They are a lot cheaper than lenses.
 
OK, I am thinking of an 86mm CPL for the 35 - 100E zoom. Which CPL filters do ot work well? Is the HB CPL worth the expense?
 
I recently bought the XCD 2,8-4/35-100E zoom and always put a UV on all lenses on to protect lens glass.
I went round and round thinking about this and ultimatley went with the $299 Hasselblad Filter.
I did it for 2 reasons.
1) I would always wonder if there was a descernable difference if I used a different brand.
2) The lens was $4599.00. so $299 = 6.5% of the cost of the lens.
I didn't come this far, $12K invested between X2D II 100C and the 35-100 zoom to cheapen out now on the filter.
That's my $.02.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top