Tinted Lens Cover vs UV Haze 010 Filter: which is safer?
B+W UV Haze 010 Filter is the clear pick. 3M Tinted Lens Cover carries a failing PFAS grade, and we never recommend buying a failing product.
3M
Tinted Lens Cover
PFAS grade
Good 50/100
Overall grade
Bad 10/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 5
Material
Polycarbonate or acrylic lens, tinted coating composition unclear
Confidence
35%
PossibleCoating degradation and leachable constituents
PossiblePolycarbonate monomer (BPA-related) leaching
ReportedPFAS in coating or adhesion layers
Our pick
B+W
UV Haze 010 Filter
PFAS grade
Excellent 85/100
Overall grade
Excellent 85/100
Verdict
Buy
Hazard flags
none flagged
Material
Optical glass lens with multi-coated optical surfaces
Confidence
82%
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Coating degradation and leachable constituents, Polycarbonate monomer (BPA-related) leaching, PFAS in coating or adhesion layers and Skin sensitization from tint dyes or additives on the 3M and not on the B+W.
- The 3M is Polycarbonate or acrylic lens, tinted coating composition unclear where the B+W is Optical glass lens with multi-coated optical surfaces, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- The gap is 35 points, wide enough that this is not a close call, and the B+W is the one to buy.
- We are less certain about the 3M grade, at 35% confidence against 82%, because it discloses less.
Both products run through the same public rubric, which covers materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →
More waterproof camera & lens protection cases, see the full ranking