Dear Matthew and Nikon fellows, Matt wrote: >>>>>>> FWIW, an infamous French publication rated the B+W filter 5 stars for optical quality and build quality/handling and had neutral color balance while Nikon only received 4 stars each and had slightly magenta color balance. (P.S. Thanks, Jose Perico!) So go ahead and buy the B+W filter. <snip> Good luck in your filter quest. I asked the same question and came up with the answer. I have a Nikon lens, not Sigma, Tamron, etc. So I put a Nikon filter on it. It was a no brainer. Which is why I will end my long post regarding Nikon filters here. <<<<<<< I suppose you are referring to Chasseur dīImages. As far as I know this magazine has a *very good* reputation, and speaking for myself I love this magazine. Their tests seems to be much more reliable than the ones depicted at Popular Photography, for instance. In their March/98 issue CdI explained how the tests are conducted and showed pictures of their labs. Their approach and procedures inspire confidence. I donīt have the issue with the tests of Circular Pol filters, but I have the one with the UV tests. The results are: B+W UV: Mounting *** / Antireflex treatment **** / Color balance ***** (neutral). Nikon LC37C: Mounting **** / Antireflex treatment ***** / Color balance ***** (a bit yellow). B+W Skylight: Mounting *** / Antireflex treatment **** / Color balance ***** (salmon). Nikon NC: Mounting **** / Antireflex treatment ***** / Color balance ***** (neutral). In both, Nikon filters performed better... Itīs hard to believe that B+W had 5 stars in all items and that Nikon had 4 in all items as it performed better and was acclaimed for its mounting quality and antireflex treatment in this quite similar test. BTW, among 35 UV and Skylight filters being tested only one filter had 5 stars in all items (it was a Minolta L37 UV AC). For those who occasionally read CdI it is important to clarify that when an item is awarded with an "Oscar 5 stars" (globally) it doesnīt mean that it is better than one product with an "Oscar 4 stars", as in these rankings cost/benefit plays an important role. It has been stressed more than once by the editors that all products ranked 4 stars are of "professional level". So an item that got 5 stars in optical/mechanical performance can be "beaten" by another a *bit* inferior in these regards, but with a great retail price. Sorry for the long and a bit off-topic post, but I really like this magazine and I know many on this list rely on their (serious) tests to choose between one product and another. Happy shooting, Isaac Boy Belo Horizonte, Brazil mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] page: www.bhnet.com.br/ibsos
