Regarding Expensive Circular Polarizers

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/30/2005 11:19:53 AM · #1

I have a question...I just bought a B+W circular polarizer with my birthday money and I have a few questions for you guys:

1. Doesn't it scare the crap out of you to have a $200 piece of glass on the front of your lens that constantly has to be removed/replaced depending on the shot?

2. I had to buy the slim because I got a 77mm that will go on the front of my 16-35. If you're in this situation, doesn't it scare the crap out of you that you can't put a lens cap on this $200 piece of glass?

3. I don't do that much landscape photography...should I just return this filter and get a cheaper one? I really wanted a PL-C for my europe trip next week but I'm wondering if I overbought.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

04/30/2005 11:31:31 AM · #2

No you did not over buy. These slim Circ Plo filters usually come with a protective push on cap. If you did not get one, then you should get an after market one. There is NO point putting a crap piece of glass in front on a expensive L lens. Polarizers are made of a plastic material film sandwiched between 2 pieces of glass, it is crucial that the planes of the glass are perfectly flat and parallel. The cheaper ones are manufactured less carefully than good ones like the B & W's.

04/30/2005 11:36:53 AM · #3

I don't think you overbought. Especially for WA, you've got light rays coming in at severe angles, and that will show up things in a filter that using it on a telephoto will not. Yes, it's a little "interesting" having an expensive filter that you can't put a cap on, LOL. I use a lens hood at all times, and I feel that provides adequate protection. I'm actually most concerned about damage during installation or removal (e.g. dropping the sucker!).
I actually destroyed a 77mm Hoya SMC "thin" filter on a recent trip. I removed it because light was fading fast, and I needed the extra stop or so. Left it on the top of my rental car, drove off. When I got to the highway, I heard it slide and realized what the noise was even before I heard it *bump* off the trunk lid... no turning back, as there was heavy traffic behind.
So if anyone finds the remains of a C-Pol filter on the main road through Sedona, AZ, it belongs to me, LOL.

Edit:
O, forgot, I bought a B+W to replace it :-)

Message edited by author 2005-04-30 11:37:21.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/30/2005 11:47:40 AM · #4

Yeah, I did get the plastic push on cap but it came off the first time I pulled the lens out of my bag.

I agree, kirbic...it's the installation/removal that scares me!

Good point about the hood...I'll make it a fixture on the lens from now on.

I guess I was wondering...is a PL-C a "must have" for landscape photos?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

04/30/2005 11:53:56 AM · #5

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

...I guess I was wondering...is a PL-C a "must have" for landscape photos?

YES

saracat

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/30/2005 01:00:04 PM · #6

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
...I guess I was wondering...is a PL-C a "must have" for landscape photos?

YES

Newbie question, but what does it do?

Jewellian

Pentax *ist DL

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Pentax

04/30/2005 01:03:17 PM · #7

lots of cool stuff. it reduces glare from reflections, increase color saturation, all kinds of neato stuff. it really helps with the blues in the sky.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

04/30/2005 01:04:52 PM · #8

Originally posted by saracat:

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
...I guess I was wondering...is a PL-C a "must have" for landscape photos?

YES

Newbie question, but what does it do?

A polarizer has several uses. You can use it to reduce reflections from non-metallic surfaces, and to darken the blue sky in landscape shots. It works by only passing light that is polarized a certain way.

jmlelii

Nikon D850

04/30/2005 01:08:20 PM · #9

I too have just ordered my first polarizer...

You have to stand at certain angles for it to work right?

saracat

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/30/2005 01:11:18 PM · #10

Thanks for the quick replies, ya'll. Does anyone know if I can get one for a point'n'shoot, or do I have to have interchangeable lens capacity or somesuch?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

04/30/2005 01:11:26 PM · #11

Originally posted by jmlelii:

I too have just ordered my first polarizer...

You have to stand at certain angles for it to work right?

For darkening a blue sky, it works best when shooting at an angle of 90Â° to the sun. For cancelling reflections, I believe approx. 30Â° from the reflective surface (60Â° from vertical) gives best cancellation.
Remember that reflections fron metallic surfaces are not polarized and therefore can't be cancelled with a polarizer.

jmlelii

Nikon D850

04/30/2005 01:12:27 PM · #12

The polarizer is one of the few filters in which you can see the effects TTL right?

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by jmlelii:
I too have just ordered my first polarizer...

You have to stand at certain angles for it to work right?

For darkening a blue sky, it works best when shooting at an angle of 90Â° to the sun. For cancelling reflections, I believe approx. 30Â° from the reflective surface (60Â° from vertical) gives best cancellation.
Remember that reflections fron metallic surfaces are not polarized and therefore can't be cancelled with a polarizer.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/30/2005 01:16:29 PM · #13

Originally posted by jmlelii:

The polarizer is one of the few filters in which you can see the effects TTL right?

you should be able to see the effects of any filter through the viewfinder of an SLR. Some effects are less apparent, however because of the way we see.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

04/30/2005 01:46:11 PM · #14

I, too, use the slim B+Ws. The push-on caps are flimsiest, most unreliable pieces of junk imaginable.

To make them useful, I suggest three pieces of Velcro (you know that one great invention of the XXth century), when you don't have the hood protecting the lens and filter.

Message edited by author 2005-04-30 13:46:32.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/30/2005 02:00:22 PM · #15

Originally posted by zeuszen:

I'm trying to understand...how do you use the velcro?

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

04/30/2005 02:09:40 PM · #16

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

...how do you use the velcro?

Four pieces, actually.

One running the width of the front of the push-on cap, to attach the longest piece to. It should overlap about an inch or so on both sides.

One shorter piece each on each side of the hood, to stick the overlapping pieces to.

-Remember that the hood will be reverse-mounted after you take it off the lens to stow away your gear in a bag or pack.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/30/2005 02:21:04 PM · #17

Okay, gotcha...what an unfortunate solution to protecting such a high end piece of engineering!

So it sounds like you leave your polarizer on a lot of the time?

Message edited by author 2005-04-30 14:21:30.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/30/2005 02:25:31 PM · #18

Neoprene drink coolers work very well to protect the front of the lens and everything on it in transit. A friend of mine and I used to manufacture them for cameras, brand name SoftShell, but we couldn't stay competitively priced. The foam ones aren't very stretchy and work less well.

Robt.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/30/2005 02:34:42 PM · #19

Originally posted by bear_music:

Ingenious. Whatever the cost, compared to Canon pricing, any number should be negligible indeed.

Jewellian

Pentax *ist DL

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Pentax

05/01/2005 08:16:45 AM · #20

Originally posted by saracat:

Thanks for the quick replies, ya'll. Does anyone know if I can get one for a point'n'shoot, or do I have to have interchangeable lens capacity or somesuch?

if your camera has a threaded ring around the lens, then you should be able to buy an adapter to let you use filters on it as well.

Jewellian

Pentax *ist DL

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Pentax

05/01/2005 08:25:12 AM · #21

Just checked out the olympus site, and yes you can use filters and tele converters and wide angle lens adapters as well Sara.

Firsty

Fujifilm X-E1

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

05/01/2005 08:41:00 AM · #22

I posted this the other day on another polarizer thread

here are a few shots I took the day I got my polarizer

this is just a screen print from my photo browser showing a group of photos I took while turning the polarizer to see the difference it makes

these two shots show how reflections are removed with the polarizer

in the first one the side of my car reflects but you can see through the front window and in the second you can see through the side windows but the front window now reflects

I suggest you do what I did and go out and play with sky shots, reflection shots and also try shooting in to a creek
don't forget to try with the sun coming from different angles as well

the sky gradiant in this shot was from using a polarizer

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

05/01/2005 09:41:13 AM · #23

Originally posted by kirbic:

... you should be able to see the effects of any filter through the viewfinder of an SLR. Some effects are less apparent, however because of the way we see.

Should I be able to see a difference in the viewfinder of a DSLR when I turn a cir-pol? I haven't really researched this well, but it's more than just a casual first impression. Seems like I could see a clear difference in the EVF on my old cameras but not so on my 20D. My guess is that this is because the light reaching my eye has already been "reflected" in the SLR viewfinder before the polarizer is added to the front end, so the effect of lining up the light to be more parallel, and getting rid of the stray high-angle light is minimized in what I see, but that the sensor still will get an improvement from the polarizer. Hope that makes sense.

Another question - why are polarizers always made with a tint that reduces light? Wouldn't it be advantageous, at least in some conditions, to use a polarizer without reducing the light coming to your lens/sensor?

blemt

Nikon D70

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

05/01/2005 10:31:07 AM · #24

Originally posted by coolhar:

Another question - why are polarizers always made with a tint that reduces light? Wouldn't it be advantageous, at least in some conditions, to use a polarizer without reducing the light coming to your lens/sensor?

I don't think it's physically possible to make a polarizing anything without the tint. The tint is part of what makes it able to polarize. It's almost counterintuitive. You are trying to cut down on various elements of the light. That requires a tinting effect.

Clara