WR CPL Circular Polarizer Filter vs Think Tank Digital Holster 5 V3: which is safer?
Think Tank Digital Holster 5 V3 is the clear pick. Sigma WR CPL Circular Polarizer Filter carries a failing PFAS grade, and we never recommend buying a failing product.
Sigma
WR CPL Circular Polarizer Filter
PFAS grade
Good 50/100
Overall grade
Poor 46/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 1
Material
Optical glass, aluminum frame, likely multi-coated lens elements
Confidence
72%
PossibleGlass breakage and sharp edges
Our pick
Think Tank Photo
Think Tank Digital Holster 5 V3
PFAS grade
Excellent 85/100
Overall grade
Good 59/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 2
Material
Ballistic nylon, weather-sealed fabric, metal hardware
Confidence
45%
PossibleUndisclosed water-repellent coating chemistry
PossibleCoating degradation over time
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Glass breakage and sharp edges on the Sigma and not on the Think Tank Photo.
- We flag Undisclosed water-repellent coating chemistry and Coating degradation over time on the Think Tank Photo and not on the Sigma.
- The Sigma is Optical glass, aluminum frame, likely multi-coated lens elements where the Think Tank Photo is Ballistic nylon, weather-sealed fabric, metal hardware, 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 Think Tank Photo is the one to buy.
- We are less certain about the Think Tank Photo grade, at 45% confidence against 72%, because it discloses less.
Both products run through the same public rubric: 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