| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/06/2005 05:31:54 PM · #1 |
The idea of paying extra money for an "L" lens and then slapping a piece of plastic on the end seems paradoxical. On the other hand, paying an extra $200 for that same piece of plasic seems like a bad idea as well.
Does anybody have experience with polarizing filters for 77mm lenses (i.e. 17-40L) and whether there is a big degradation in picture sharpness with cheaper filters? I'd like one in the $50 range if possible, but don't want to spend too little for a filter that will ultimately fight against me. |
|
|
|
08/06/2005 05:48:34 PM · #2 |
| I have the low profile Hoyas and a generic brand from B&H. No difference at all. It's how you use it :) |
|
|
|
08/06/2005 08:36:50 PM · #3 |
Popular PHotography reports no difference between cheap and expensive filters on images. I have cheap Hoya and a S&W CPL's. No expensive ones to compare it to.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2005 08:38:28 PM · #4 |
I've been wanting to get one for awhile... Leica makes one but it's on the steep end of the spectrum. I've heard that there is a difference in quality, but I'm not sure how much, or if it really matters. I kinda wanted it for tomorrow, but it's a little late :-/
|
|
|
|
08/06/2005 08:45:36 PM · #5 |
I'm not sure about this but from what I heard you loose 2 stops with cheap polorizer. If you get Nikon you loose 1 and 1/3 stops. So it is how much light they transmit that counts.
I expect canon is the same way.
Nick
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 06:24:38 AM EDT.
