Best (affordable) alternative for B+W 099 filter?

[Nisei]

I already have a 52mm 099 filter which I'm using for IR photography (IRG) but also need a 67mm.

Since they are pretty hard to find nowadays I'm looking for an alternative.

Comparing different graphs I've found that the (also discontinued but easier to find) Hoya Orange (G) filter comes closest to the 099.

The Hoya Ya3 Pro starts a bit too high in my opinion, making it around 570nm, not 550nm.

Has anyone compared both in real world tests?

[Cadmium]

As shown on your top right B+W graph, the "099 = OG550" refers to Schott OG550 which is the exact same glass used for the B+W 099 filter.

B+W makes most of their filters from Schott glass. All of their filters are available as Schott glass.

All of the OG and RG numbers are Schott glass numbers, some of which are not available as a B+W filter, for example RG665, which is a often used IR filter by photographers.

Also, B+W 040 is made of Schott OG550, same as the 099. Both are 50% transmission at 550nm.

The 099 is considered an "Infrared Filter", the 040 is considered a "Black and White Filter".

The 099 filter has no coatings, the 040 filter has a coating.

If you are using it for IR, then they probably omit the coating on their IR filters for a reason.

[ulf]

I have the B+W 040.

When I measured the transmission I cannot remember seeing any strange behaviour in the NIR range.

IMHO the B+W 040 can be a better alternative than the B+W 099.

 

I cannot find the transmission graphs now and I did not do a deep analysis of the upper range as we did for the Hoya R72.

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3491-mystery-ir-filter-transmission-spectra-and-images/page__view__findpost__p__30621

 

Some day I will redo a detailed measurement of the B+W 040 and post the result.

Currently the spectrometer setup is not configured for such measurements.

[Nisei]

Thanks for responding guys.

I've been looking at the 040 filter but the graph shows a different curve than the one published for the 099 filter.

In fact it looks very close to the Hoya Ya3

But anyway, these are just numbers. Let's say I have to choose between an average 540nm and 560nm, which one would you guys prefer?

[Cadmium]

I don't know what the E stands for. The MRC means multi-layer coating.

Looks like the MRC version slightly cuts IR as it goes higher.

The B+W 099 is made of Schott OG550, and I think it is 2mm thick also.

Technically, those should be 3mm thick to be exactly 550nm at 50%.

I have a B+W 099, but I wasn't able to locate it right now to measure the thickness.

I found my B+W 040 (mine says nothing on it about E or MRC, it says "B+W 77 040 4x" to be exact), it measures 2.1mm thick exactly.

Again, technically, OG550 and 099 are suppose to be 50% at 550nm at 3mm thick, however I think the 099 is also 2mm thick, so technically it should be slightly lower than 550nm at 50%.

It doesn't really make sense that the graph you show is slightly higher than 550nm at 50%,

but I don't think that will matter, slightly above or below will be virtually the same, and I don't know what to say about the functional difference you will see between the E and the MRC version with IR.

 

[ulf]

There seams to be three alternatives for B+W NIR-filters, cutting around 550nm - 099, 040 E and 040 MRC.

The best would be the 040 E version with a slightly better transmission than the 099 due to the coating.

That is the one I prefer and have.

The MRC-variant drops further up, as can be seen in your transmission graphs.

 

Uncoated filters can in some high contrast light-situations add a bit of flare to the images.

Limiting this is likely the most important improvement a coated filter gives.

The improved transmission only improves the exposure by 1/10 of a stop and isn't normally noticeable.

 

After a proper white balancing a difference of ±10nm of the cutoff wavelength is not visible either in a normal a normal lanscape-image

Even ±20nm isn't that important. That is likely why B+W retired the 530nm filter 023 earlier.

Now they seam to have stopped producing all black and white filters, but the 040 is still quite common on the eBay, just as the yellow version 022, cutting at 495nm.

 

If I had to chose between a sharp cut filter cutting at 540nm or 560nm, I think I would chose 540nm, but I would mot work very hard to get one as the difference to a 550nm filter would be very small.

 

If you for some technical reason really need a 540nm-filter such a filter could be made. A OG550 glass 1mm thick will give a cutoff of 540nm.

Ask Steve (Cadmium) if he want to make such filters for you, but be prepared to buy an entire production-batch, as it will require one raw filter-glass sheet making the filters.

 

Filters with a cutoff around 550nm are often used for simulation of the Kodak Aerochrome film that originally required the orange Tiffen 12 filter for the intended function of eliminating blue light.

[Andy Perrin]

After a proper white balancing a difference of ±10nm of the cutoff wavelength is not visible either in a normal a normal lanscape-image

Is it really possible to make such a blanket statement? When I look up the spectral colors, what I find are:

 

Color Wavelength (nm)

Red 780 - 622

Orange 622 - 597

Yellow 597 - 577

Green 577 - 492

Blue 492 - 455

Violet 455 - 390

(from http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/optics-pc/wavelength-colors/)

 

Different sources list differences in the exact numbers of course. But what stands out is that the range of each color band varies a lot:

Color ∆Wavelength (nm)

Red 158

Orange 25

Yellow 20

Green 85

Blue 37

Violet 65

 

So it would seem to make a difference where in the spectrum that ±10nm is.

[ulf]

This is not about different colour bands but the total appearance of an image after WB.

 

I base my statement on two facts.

1. Very few objects in a normal a normal lanscape-image have a sharp reflectivity change of a rage of 10nm

2. The image from the camera must be white balanced as it will be extremely orange tinted. WB change the appearance much more than the difference in cutoff.

 

 

Naturally the difference in filters will be detectable by measurement, but the difference visually will be extremely difficult to see as all other things change more.

[Cadmium]

What is the 040 E? I can't find that.

[ulf]

The E-designation, I think, was used to indicate a single layer coating.

Sometimes it can be seen on the filter's ring's front face.

Mine reads B+W 77 040 4x E.

 

BTW it is a really idiotic place to write the type designation.

From the front it is often possible to see the type from the filter's colour.

 

When looking at the filter from the edge it is not that easy to see the type.

On the outer edge there are plenty of space even after all other things they write there: MADE IN GERMANY, F-PRO and B+W.

Possibly there are not enough space on the smallest filter diameters.

[Herman1705]

I already have a 52mm 099 filter which I'm using for IR photography (IRG) but also need a 67mm.

 

Here some sample images using the B+W 040 E

Converted Sony A500; RMC Tokina 24mm 1:2.8 @f/11

 

UV/IR cut filter

 

B+W 040 E filter; RAWcomposite from RAWdigger

 

B+W 040 E filter; RGB render from RAWdigger

 

B+W 040 E filter; Single image 'Infrachrome'.

[Andy Perrin]

Gorgeous photos Herman!

[Nisei]

Yes, very nice!

[Nisei]

On a side note:

I have two 099 filters (49mm and 52mm) and they both look yellow to me.

I've always been wondering why people are calling it orange.

The filters in the pic you're posting look way more orange than mine. As do nearly all the pictures I see online.

If I had just 1 filter I would think it was a deep yellow filter in a 099 frame but since I have 2 of them (from different sources) I know for sure they're 099.

I will post a pic tomorrow and show you how different it looks.

[Cadmium]

Nisei, 099, 040, OG550, 550nm are all definitely the same orange, they don't even look close to yellow.

 

Herman, Very nice Infrachrome shot.

[Nisei]

Weird. My filters look more like this.

But I'm posting a real pic tomorrow.

[Cadmium]

Some of my filters against this screen above for comparison.

 

So your B+W 099 looks like the Tiffen #165 photo.

I don't have a Tiffen #16, but the Tiffen #16 photo above looks very much like my Tiffen #12 filters.

Like I said, all of the 099, 040, OG550, 550nm filters look orange. I can't speak for the #16, I can't even find a graph for the #16 at the moment.

Do you have a #16? Does it look the same color as your 099?

Don't worry about the color of these photos, just buy a 040 and be the first to directly compare it to your 099, I am pretty sure it will work the same.

[Nisei]

Oh no the picture is just for illustration, ignore the Tiffen #16 lettering.

It's from Amazon and the color may be way off compared to the real #16 filter.

But yes, that's about how my 099 filters look.

[Nisei]

Oops, double post

[Cadmium]

I have added a comparison of some of my filters against the screen with the Tiffen #16 image on the screen above.

This is fairly accurate. Like I said, I can't find a Tiffen #16 to compare to the screen image, but the progression looks about right to me.

[dabateman]

This is the spectra for Tiffen 16 and 21. Both the same as the wratten numbers.

 

You may just be seeing your more yellow based on the light or reference. See if you can take a photo of it next to other filters or a white card. I see many yellow filters as clear, but when photographing them they come up the correct yellow. Its the power of white balance.

[Nisei]

I have added a comparison of some of my filters against the screen with the Tiffen #16 image on the screen above.

This is fairly accurate. Like I said, I can't find a Tiffen #16 to compare to the screen image, but the progression looks about right to me.

Thanks for the picture Steve.

Yes, the progression looks right.

But here are a few pictures of my 099 filters taken in daylight.

As you can see I have one of them mounted inside a Nikon to E-mount adapter but the color is exactly the same.

This is exactly as I see the filter color with the naked eye so I really don't understand why both my 099 filters are so different from your 040 filter.

My 099 filters look more like Tiffen 12 or B+W 023. And like I said, I got them from 2 different sources. One is 52mm, the other 49mm.

[Nisei]

This is the spectra for Tiffen 16 and 21. Both the same as the wratten numbers.

You may just be seeing your more yellow based on the light or reference. See if you can take a photo of it next to other filters or a white card. I see many yellow filters as clear, but when photographing them they come up the correct yellow. Its the power of white balance.

Thanks for the graph. May I ask where you've found it? I'd been searching for the Tiffen graph everywhere but couldn't find it and sent them an email if they want to send it to me.

They got back to me pretty quick so this one is from the original source (see below). Funny to see how they were in doubt of whether to call it deep yellow or orange :)

Although I agree with you on the matter of white balance (and don't forget monitor calibration) I don't think Steve has posted any pictures that are way off the charts. I'd call my 099 deep yellow or warm yellow, not orange. The 040 Steve has posted is definitely orange though.

I've ordered a Tiffen #16 for €30 from Amazon Germany and I'm curious how it will look compared to the 099.

[ulf]

I hope this document can be useful.

 

B+W had it for download before, but not anymore.

BWHandbook.pdf

[dabateman]

 

Thanks for the graph. May I ask where you've found it? I'd been searching for the Tiffen graph everywhere but couldn't find it and sent them an email if they want to send it to me.

They got back to me pretty quick so this one is from the original source (see below). Funny to see how they were in doubt of whether to call it deep yellow or orange :)

Although I agree with you on the matter of white balance (and don't forget monitor calibration) I don't think Steve has posted any pictures that are way off the charts. I'd call my 099 deep yellow or warm yellow, not orange. The 040 Steve has posted is definitely orange though.

I've ordered a Tiffen #16 for €30 from Amazon Germany and I'm curious how it will look compared to the 099.

 

Ulf previously shared it here:

http://www.videocineimport.com/archivos/201503/tiffen_bfilt_broch_0413.pdf?1