Pricing and availability of Sigma WR water repellent ceramic protector filter announced

Sigma WR ceramic protector filter
Sigma announces the pricing and availability of their new WR water repellent ceramic protector filter. The official pricing is listed below but the actual street prices at B&H are lower:

  • $130 for size 67mm
  • $151 for size 72mm
  • $165 for size 77mm
  • $203 for size 82mm
  • $283 for size 86mm
  • $346 for size 95mm
  • $441 for size 105mm

Shipping should start next week (end of January). Here is a video of a drop ball test:

Key features of the Sigma WR ceramic protector filter:

  • Scratch-resistant – Sigma’s Clear Glass Ceramic offers a Vickers hardness number of 700HV. The strength of the Clear Glass Ceramic is much stronger than chemically strengthen glass and is 10 times stronger than conventional filters
  • Thinner and lighter – This new protector is up to 50 percent thinner and is up to 30% lighter than previous Sigma filters
  • High transmittance – Clear Glass Ceramic offers very high transmittance, making it ideal for use as optical glass
  • Water- and oil-repellent coating – The water repellent coating reflects only 0.24 percent of visible light, thereby minimizing flare and ghosting. Its ability to repel both water and oil is also excellent, with water drops bouncing right off, and fingerprints are easily to remove
  • As with all of Sigma’s lenses, the filter is checked with Sigma’s own Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) measuring system, “A1,” in the company’s factory in Japan.

The full press release can be found here.

This entry was posted in Sigma. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Sakaphoto Graphics

    7 at $20 each or 1 at $151? Hmmm

    • Henri De Vreese

      You shouldn’t buy a protector unless you know you need it…
      And if you know you need one, get these :D. (sub 1000$ lenses do not need protection btw)

      • Zaphod

        Doesn’t that really depend on your financial situation?

        • Henri De Vreese

          If you can pay for a 5000$ lens, then you can also pay for the filter to protect it in harsh enviroments. If you can barely pay a 500$ lens (which you shouldn’t buy if you cannot easily pay it anyway) you shouldn’t pay a penny extra to get a filter for protection.

          • Zaphod

            If you can only afford a $500 lens, shouldn’t you take precautions so that that lens doesn’t break?

          • Henri De Vreese

            No, because a filter won’t make a lens not break if it drops. (a hood might) But it only protects against harsh enviroments, like accid when visiting sulfer craters or a sand storm. Firstly I question if people that can only afford a lens of 500$ can pay for such a trip and secondly, if this is one of your prized possesions which you don’t want to break, then don’t bring it with you to these high-risk enviroments. And even then, the scratches a sand storm causes to a lens won’t degrade the performance of the lens. You can have A LOT of scratches on the lens before the degradation of the imagequality comes close to that of putting a cheap filter in front of it.

          • Zaphod

            That’s one point of view. There are many valid ones.

          • Henri De Vreese

            Just to be clear, the purpose of the lenses has to be the same between the 500$ one and the 5000$ one. I totally understand buying a 500$ 28mm lens over a 1500$ 24mm lens just because of the value proposition.
            500vs 5000 would be a long tele lens.

          • preston

            A filter CAN help protect a lens from breaking from a short drop (it happened to me, so don’t tell me I’m wrong). I don’t know why you’re looking at things like budgets in such absolute terms. Your method of budgeting is not the end-all be-all of budgeting. Many different factors influence what the best way to budget for each individual.

          • Henri De Vreese

            So you have dropped a lens 2 times in the same way. 1 time you had a filter on and it didn’t break and the second time it didn’t have a filter and it didn’t break? I had a 18-200 VR2 with filter and it dropped from 1m (with camera) and it broke. (Got it repaired for cheap because of NPS, but it still broke with a filter on).
            It’s not only budget you have to consider, image degradation also has to be accounted for.
            Let’s say a lens costs 1000$ and thus produces a image quality of 1000$. Adding a cheap 20$ filter will make the image quality degrade to 700$.
            So you paid extra to get less. If you buy a 100$ filter, you get a image quality worth 975$. (but you paid 1100$ total.
            To me, none of these make sense unless you are in an eviroment that is able to harm the front element and nothing else than the front element.
            Not using a filter (even if it’s free) is the best value in 99% of cases.

          • preston

            I didn’t say a filter creates an invisible force field that protects the lens from falls every single time and from every different angle of impact. It most likely saved my 70-300 though. Dropped it on the front of the lens at about a 45 degree angle from maybe 2 ft above the asphalt (fell out of case as I was getting out of my car). The glass of the filter shattered and the aluminum ring was so dented in that I couldn’t remove it. I took it to the shop and they agreed that the front element almost surely would have broken if I didn’t have the filter there to take the force of the impact. Thanks for making me waste my time with that long explanation since you felt like being a dick and not just trusting me in the first place.

            We got it. Filters don’t make sense to you. They do make sense to me though, which I’ve explained. Doesn’t make me objectively wrong.

            By the way, I got a good laugh out of your dollar justification. You are pulling image degradation dollar figures out of your ass, so don’t expect people to agree with your reasoning there.

          • Henri De Vreese

            Ok, opinions differ and I’m a dick.

          • preston

            Thanks, I’m glad you’ve come around 😉

  • Deryk

    Impressive, but I rather stick with my B+W filters. Moreover I use my lens hoods so there are few scenarios I am really worried about that would result in these filters being necessary. Nevertheless, I like seeing Sigma amp up its game.

    • Henri De Vreese

      I stopped using them more than 5 years ago when I tested the influence they had on image quality. If you use something, it has to be unobstructive, like these or the Nikon clear ones. A hood is indeed all you need for 99% of possible scenario’s.

      • Deryk

        Admittedly I use them for piece of mind. While I have no real faith in them with a drop, they keep the dust and grime from going on the lens front. I am OCD, so I have a tendency to “over clean”. When that happens, I damage the lens more with little cleaning marks and scratches. I have found little image deterioration from using B+W XS-Pro multicoated clear slim filters. If there is image deterioration, it is negligible. I am using a d800e with mainly exotic primes (85mm 1.4, Zeiss 100mm f2, Sigma 35mm 1.4) so maybe because those lenses are already sharp as hell, on a body that produces crazy sharp photos, I can’t see it. But that is what works for me. It keeps me sane.

        • Henri De Vreese

          I have about the same setup now (D800e and 1.4 primes), but tested it back then with a 5Dmk2 and even with a 85 1.8 AF-D lens I could see the degradation in image quality when I had a light in the picture or spots that are almost overexposed. Your lens itself doesn’t need to be clean, even when it’s full of dust (I had a lens sit on a shelf for 3 months and compared it dirty to cleaned and saw no difference). Cleaning your sensor is far more important than cleaning your lenses.

  • sickheadache

    No Hoods, No Filters…I grew up years ago. They are not needed, since God Invented PhotoShop. Or was it Zod?

  • I could have used a 49mm one this weekend during that blizzard. Snow was blowing sideways and got all in the lens hood on my Sony 35mm f/2.8

  • Bill

    I’ve had strippers kiss my lens, cake bounced off it, champagne sprayed on it, dirt-bike mud tossed at it… I even had some guy walk up and stick gum on it… and all I had to do was unscrew my filter and keep shooting. Funny how people will argue which cleaner or tissue to use to clean the delicate coating on a lens, but then say they don’t need protection from scratches.

  • Back to top