Polarising Filters.??

Marc1t

Member
Messages
29
Reaction score
17
Location
Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
How much would you spend on a polarising filter?

I’m looking to buy one for my Nikon 24-70 f2.8. I’m fairly new to photography & a bit bewildered by the varying cost & different manufacturers.

Any recommendations welcome.

Cheers Marc
 
I think the Lee polariser is at considerable cost. OTOH it would fit all lenses. Does your Lee setup vignette at 24mm? There is a special adaptor to fit Lee to wide lenses.
 
How much would you spend on a polarising filter?

I’m looking to buy one for my Nikon 24-70 f2.8. I’m fairly new to photography & a bit bewildered by the varying cost & different manufacturers.

Any recommendations welcome.

Cheers Marc
Polarising filters can be difficult to muti-coat.

They are good at darkening the sky at about 90 degrees from the sun, but with a wide angle lens the sky will appear to darken from one side to another.

They are very good at eliminating reflections off surfaces such as water and glass.

To get either of these effects you need to rotate the filter. because you need to rotate the filter they can be difficult to use with lens hoods.

They are not the sort of filter that you would want in place all the time - you are going to be screwing them on and off the lens quite a bit.

You also get interesting coloured effects off clear plastic.

a1e3bdd6b53649b588aff80b488dfd2b.jpg


You can't go too far wrong with a Hoya. Don't pay the earth.


Save a life, become a stem-cell donor.
Hello to Jason Isaacs!
https://bobjanes.smugmug.com/PoTB/
Please respect a BY-NC-ND cc licence on all my public internet images
 
Last edited:
Suddenly noticing the name on that interesting comparison did you ever form a view about what the ND filter was doing? As you say it shouldn't have made any real difference.
No filter is going to pass exactly the same mix of wavelengths as would no filter at all. Though with an ND the difference may be slight (as it should be) there will inevitably be some difference in the mix of wavelengths passes, and a consequent slight difference int he rending of some colors, and the darkening or lightening of some colors. This is much more pronounced and obvious the denser the ND, to the point where 10-stop filter and the like are likely to produce a color rendition that is difficult or impossible to correct during processing.

Dave
 
That was basically what I thought - that the filter wasn't neutral - and I wondered if the author had more thoughts.
 
Re: No simple answer . . .

Hi Marc,

To me, this is more than just a Beginner's topic . . .

I normally bring two or three camera bodies when shooting in the field. Rather than fiddle removing filter holder from one camera to install it on the others, I find it more efficient/convenient to have filter holder mounted to every camera/lens.combination.
.
This link to SQUARE HOLDER FILTERS. The article covers filter systems other than LEE

I wasted $$$ on cheap filters instead of looking for integrated solution. There are three or four filter systems offering integrated solution to taming lights. While I settled on LEE Filters, it may not be the best but it is the system that best fit my needs. I spend over $1,000 for my filter system.

May I suggest for you to watch the video?

http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/polariser
Yes good video,. Thanks.

I do have some ND grad filters which I bought cheaply second Hand though unused (eBay) a couple of years ago They are not the Lee ones, but the cheaper Hi-Tech 100 x125mm which fit the Lee holder which I also have, its not a complete set as I have only three in a mixed array of densities hard & soft edge. I have no idea whether these are any good or not?

TBH I hadn’t considered screwing the POL filter to the front of the Lee holder, I’m guessing to go down this rout I would need a larger diameter than the 77mm of my lens?
 
"I normally bring two or three camera bodies when shooting in the field."

Blimey, he only wanted to spend £30 on a filter! I'd need a donkey to carry that sort of clobber.
 
Re: Polarising Filters.??
How much would you spend on a polarising filter?

I’m looking to buy one for my Nikon 24-70 f2.8. I’m fairly new to photography & a bit bewildered by the varying cost & different manufacturers.

Any recommendations welcome.

Cheers Marc
I wasted $$$ on cheap filters instead of looking for integrated solution. There are three or four filter systems offering integrated solution to taming lights. While I settled on LEE Filters, it may not be the best but it is the system that best fit my needs. I spend over $1,000 for my filter system.

May I suggest for you to watch the video?

http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/polariser
Yes good video,. Thanks.

I do have some ND grad filters which I bought cheaply second Hand though unused (eBay) a couple of years ago They are not the Lee ones, but the cheaper Hi-Tech 100 x125mm which fit the Lee holder which I also have, its not a complete set as I have only three in a mixed array of densities hard & soft edge. I have no idea wyhether these are any good or not?

TBH I hadn’t considered screwing the POL filter to the front of the Lee holder, I’m guessing to go down this rout I would need a larger diameter than the 77mm of my lens?
Hi-tech has high quality filters. They tend to be a bit warmer than Lee.

Do you want to mount a 100mm CPL to a holder in order to use it, or direct mount a 77mm to the lens, so you can use it anytime? The odds are, I'll use the CPL at least 100 to 1, compared to the holder with NDs or GNDs. The CPL doesn't do any good if you don't use it.

You'll probably use a tripod when using the holder, but use the CPL hand-held. You want to be able to use it.
 
But before that, why specifically are you thinking of buying a CPL? They can be useful in some situations, of course - but be sure you understand those situations before you buy.

Hi & thanks for your answer.
bearing in mind I have limited experience, & maybe over thinking things.

I had the idea that When we eventually get some good weather & are allowed out to take photos I would like to do some more landscapes.

I have a few subjects & ideas in mind.

In some instances I may want to eliminate reflections, in water, enrich colours & increase contrast particularly between clouds & sky.

I also had the idea that for early morning / late evening shots (though I do understand I could use Nd filters) that maybe using one would allow me to slow shutter speed down a little to create some movement in the clouds while still maintaining the desired effects mentioned above.

Hope I got that question right:-O:-)

😀

cheers. Marc.
A "standard" CPL can reduce the exposure by 2 1/2 stops, measured from with and without. That can be a lot at the narrow apertures used with landscape. That's the main reason for the preference for the high transmission types for hand-held use.
Have you seen any tests to verify the HT are just as effective ???
You can lose too much shutter speed in low light with The standard.
I can accept more light loss IF it indeed is more effective.
The standards are handy to help blur a fast moving mountain stream. That doesn't take much. That's more likely where you've seen them used in place of an ND.
If anything, they are better, but I think the effect is harder to recognize when it doesn't get darker at the same time. At half-press, the live view compensates.
Just to be sure I understand ...

Are you saying Linear or Circular polarizers are better ???

Are you saying Darker or High-Transmission polarizers are better ???

My choice of course would be that (cheaper) Linear AND High-Transmission are best and available multi-coated and hydro-phobic ....
 
But before that, why specifically are you thinking of buying a CPL? They can be useful in some situations, of course - but be sure you understand those situations before you buy.

Hi & thanks for your answer.
bearing in mind I have limited experience, & maybe over thinking things.

I had the idea that When we eventually get some good weather & are allowed out to take photos I would like to do some more landscapes.

I have a few subjects & ideas in mind.

In some instances I may want to eliminate reflections, in water, enrich colours & increase contrast particularly between clouds & sky.

I also had the idea that for early morning / late evening shots (though I do understand I could use Nd filters) that maybe using one would allow me to slow shutter speed down a little to create some movement in the clouds while still maintaining the desired effects mentioned above.

Hope I got that question right:-O:-)

😀

cheers. Marc.
A "standard" CPL can reduce the exposure by 2 1/2 stops, measured from with and without. That can be a lot at the narrow apertures used with landscape. That's the main reason for the preference for the high transmission types for hand-held use.
Have you seen any tests to verify the HT are just as effective ???
You can lose too much shutter speed in low light with The standard.
I can accept more light loss IF it indeed is more effective.
The standards are handy to help blur a fast moving mountain stream. That doesn't take much. That's more likely where you've seen them used in place of an ND.
If anything, they are better, but I think the effect is harder to recognize when it doesn't get darker at the same time. At half-press, the live view compensates.
Just to be sure I understand ...

Are you saying Linear or Circular polarizers are better ???

Are you saying Darker or High-Transmission polarizers are better ???

My choice of course would be that (cheaper) Linear AND High-Transmission are best and available multi-coated and hydro-phobic ....
A name brand linear might be better than a cheap, generic CPL, but there are no premium versions, like there are for CPLs.

I can "see" the effect more obviously with the more dense versions, but lose too much shutter speed in low light or heavy tree cover. That's why I use both.
 
I never liked the way the CPLs alter the colors, regardless of what I do in LR. I bought a warming CPL just to make the colors more pleasant. I like it more even though it is not coated.

Having said that, I do not even remember when was the last time I used my CPLs.
 
I was aghast at how far the advice had drifted!
 
I'm sorry, it was meant to be light hearted. It is the DPR theme that the upper limit of the cost of the advice drifts upwards. Apologies, I did assume the humour was fairly obvious.
 
There are many good brands. I've selected B+W, and now I no longer have to waste time comparing specs.

Given the amount of money I spend on gear and travel, it would be a shame to have less than perfect photos because I was too cheap to spend the extra $23 on a decent filter.

A good polarizer would be around 80 - 100
 
To get either of these effects you need to rotate the filter. because you need to rotate the filter they can be difficult to use with lens hoods.

...
1st off, great post!

2nd, to address the quote above: one workaround is to get an inexpensive screw-in lens hood and attach that lightly to the front of the CPL...if the CPL has front threads. Then, if you need to adjust the polarization, you just spin the hood.

Pros: Easy to turn. A collapsible rubber hood can be adjusted for optimal shading of multiple focal length lenses. If you go with the "largest filter diameter of the lenses you use and then use step-up rings" mentality, it can be used with any of your lenses.

Cons: Over-tightening will give you heartburn trying to remove the hood. The hood itself can shade wide-angle lenses (even though wide-angle lenses will give uneven sky polarization. A collapsible rubber hood doesn't offer much impact protection.
 
Re: No simple answer . . .

Hi Marc,

To me, this is more than just a Beginner's topic . . .

I normally bring two or three camera bodies when shooting in the field. Rather than fiddle removing filter holder from one camera to install it on the others, I find it more efficient/convenient to have filter holder mounted to every camera/lens.combination.
.
This link to SQUARE HOLDER FILTERS. The article covers filter systems other than LEE

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...-top-filter-holders-for-square-filter-systems
I wasted $$$ on cheap filters instead of looking for integrated solution. There are three or four filter systems offering integrated solution to taming lights. While I settled on LEE Filters, it may not be the best but it is the system that best fit my needs. I spend over $1,000 for my filter system.

May I suggest for you to watch the video?

http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/polariser
Yes good video,. Thanks.

I do have some ND grad filters which I bought cheaply second Hand though unused (eBay) a couple of years ago They are not the Lee ones, but the cheaper Hi-Tech 100 x125mm which fit the Lee holder which I also have, its not a complete set as I have only three in a mixed array of densities hard & soft edge. I have no idea whether these are any good or not?

TBH I hadn’t considered screwing the POL filter to the front of the Lee holder, I’m guessing to go down this rout I would need a larger diameter than the 77mm of my lens?
I normally use leefilter, LEE100 System and Polariser are a great invention for a clear image. It is very impressive, I always recommend my friends to use it...
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top