WR UV Filter vs Think Tank Digital Holster 5 V3: which is safer?
Sigma WR UV Filter is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Our pick
Sigma
WR UV Filter
PFAS grade
Excellent 85/100
Overall grade
Excellent 81/100
Verdict
Buy
Hazard flags
⚑ 1
Material
UV-absorbing optical glass or mineral coating
Confidence
72%
PossibleOptical coating degradation and microabrasion
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 Optical coating degradation and microabrasion 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 UV-absorbing optical glass or mineral coating where the Think Tank Photo is Ballistic nylon, weather-sealed fabric, metal hardware, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- These two are level, close enough that price and fit should decide it rather than our grade.
- 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