| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2005 02:45:21 PM · #1 |
| I'm pricing some circular polarizers for my 17-40L. Cheapest is about $50, most expensive is about $150. What am I gaining in the increased price in practical terms? Anybody have good experience with an inexpensive 77mm polarizer? |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 02:49:02 PM · #2 |
With the price comes multi-coated and multi-stopped (deeper) polarizer. The cheapest one you can get (which I use) does not have the most dramatic polarizing effect and also can produce fairly heavy flare (although if you use it correctly it doesn't). The more expensive polarizers have a very strong effect and some, such as the Singh-Ray have markings on how many stops darker you are affecting the image and such.
Just what I think I know :)
Lee
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 02:55:45 PM · #3 |
At the time I needed it most, I could not afford nor wait for a polarizer from Canon at 130.00 so i went to the local camera store and got one for around 37. Forget the brand. But so far I have not had a problem with it. I used a friends Canon polarizer the other weekend side by side with my cheapo and saw no difference.
On the other side, handling and attaching the two 'felt' different. The glass is definitely better in the Canon and it seems more sturdy. The cheapo always scares me it will cross thread or something equally as silly. Also, the rotation on the cheapo seems like it needs lubricating and that just seems like a bad idea to me. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 02:59:53 PM · #4 |
I have a cheapo too and really don't think I would ever shell out the money for an expensive one. In the past month alone I think I have dropped it 3-4 times lightly and although no damage was done, I still wouldn't want to chance it with an expensive one.
As for the cross threading... I also feel this way which is why I drop it so many times. I try and screw it on very lightly because it does seem like if were to put any pressure on it it would cross thread and ruin my lens. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 03:04:46 PM · #5 |
In a word, precision. You get what you pay for, up to a point. Arguably manufacturers like Canon overprice their polarizers. I'd expect high-mid-range-priced poalrizers to feel as well-made as a Canon filter, but I know from personal experience that the cheap ones feel "gritty" and imprecise as described by others in this thread.
To be honest, I've never noticed a difference optically. I'm sure there ARE differences that will manifest themselves in extreme lighting conditions (especially as regards flare) but it's never been a problem for me.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 03:10:58 PM · #6 |
Funny this thread should pop up now. I just bought a Hoya MultiCoated polarizer 3 hours ago. I love it. Didn't get to test it on a clear sky, as it's rather cloudy today. Removes reflections from foliage nicely.
Paid 22 euros for it (used)
EDIT: Size 58mm with step rings for smaller ones
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 15:11:15. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 03:32:47 PM · #7 |
| i know that with professional film cameras (moving picture cameras) the cheaper filters have a tendency of having a slight green tint to them instead of only being a reflection reducing ND. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 03:44:02 PM · #8 |
| I bought a quantaray polarizer for $30 for my rebel. It works great and is sturdy compared to a cheapie one I got off ebay fr my Olympus. I'm not sure how much better a Canon one would be at a much higher price, but the one I have seems to work great. It doesn't have stop information printed on it though. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 03:59:02 PM · #9 |
I'm using a 55mm Soligor circular polarizer ($25) and don't have any complaints. But then, I haven't used any of the high-end polarizers so I wouldn't know the difference anyway. :-)
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 15:59:39. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 04:24:31 PM · #10 |
I've had a variety of polarizers, from cheapies to mid-priced (Hoya) to relatively expensive B+W ones. I use a polarizer most on my 24-70 zoom, and the B+W I have now is, IMO a better unit than any I have previously owned.
The things that affect price in a polarizer are:
- Quality of the glass
- Quality and type (or even presence) of anti-reflective coatings
- Quality of the mount (some are even sealed against dust and moisture)
The quality of the glass and coatings are the most important aspects to consider. If the glass is not optically flat and of very uniform thickness, then you've got a lens, and the filter will increase CA and distortion. If the filter is not "multi-coated, meaning that all the glass surfaces are coated, it will increase flare much more than a non-coated one. This may be a real problem on some lenses, and less of a problem on others, depending on the shape of the elements. Use of a hood will gretly reduce flare from filters, but by no means eliminate it. Any filter will usually increase flare.
The mount quality is really a secondary consideration, as long as the filter mounts/dismounts and rotates easily. you certainly don't want a filter that will become stuck on a lens, and some cheapies tend to.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 04:24:49 PM · #11 |
really, really, dumb busted post
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 16:30:07. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 04:25:04 PM · #12 |
I've yet to see direct comparisons between cheap and expensive CPLs but I was reading Popular Photography and they state that they couldn't see any difference and recommended the cheaper versions of the filters. So I've been following their advice. If you look at ebay. They have them for about $20 by a company called S&W, suppossedly made in USA as well.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 04:31:51 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
really, really, dumb busted post |
Put the filter on and compose a shot that contains blue sky. Ideally the sun should be about 90 deg from the direction you're facing. Rotate the filter and watch the blue of the sky. If it doesn't darken and lighten, you have a bad filter.
Try it also over water with shimering sunlit reflections. The CP should knock the reflections way down and sharpen contrast overall.
Now my reply makes no sense!
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 16:32:25. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 04:37:45 PM · #14 |
In relation to my really, really, dumb busted post...thanks for your response strangeghost!
Ok...here is one difference that can be seen between an expensive and a cheap CP filter. First, looking through one one way in a mirror and then the other, the way the camera sees it should be much darker. I just tried this with a Hoya and a Quantaray - they both look the same. BUT, the angle of incidence for a CP to be effective is 50 degrees. (hence my really, really, dumb busted post). At this angle you should be able to eliminate any reflection from a window you are taking a picture through, especialy by rotating the filter to gain maximum effect. With the Hoya this works just as it was just explained to me and then demonstrated. However, with the Quantaray, the reflection never quite goes away. There always seems to be some residual ghost of reflection left no matter what.
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 16:42:04. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 04:56:13 PM · #15 |
I don't want to pipe in simply to slam a company, but I don't believe you should get Quantaray equipment. I say it is a company, but really Quantary is a product line offered only by Ritz Camera (and now Wolf Camera due to the takeover a couple years ago). It is produced (I believe) by Sigma, and offers a way for Ritz to sell cameras that they don't have to pricematch. You'll notice when you go buy one of their predesigned kits, it almost always comes with a Quantaray lens. That way you can't find the exact item anywhere else.
Invariably, I have found that Quantaray lens to be of inferior build, both optically and as it relates to physical construction of the lens.
I don't know if this would extend to the filters, but you can tell a cheap filter when you see one. We stocked all grades of filters in a store I worked for and the high end filters were noticeably thicker, heavier, and more "solid" feeling.
I wish I had been able to do a practical test, but alas...
With that said, I have always used Tiffen and been fairly happy with them. But my mind's eye looks to the future when I can afford the nicer variety. I have a feeling they would be worth the extra cost.
One last note: Filter mark up in a retail store is typically 80-100%.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 05:09:20 PM · #16 |
| A friend was here and happened to have more filters than I have ever had and gave me a demo. The one I have begins with an S... or something. It needs to be replaced though. I am not happy with it. It feels like I am going to have to have a mechanic take it off my lense. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 05:13:47 PM · #17 |
| IMO for the most part the Cheap and mid range ones work great, I use a Promaster that was about $37, Te filter feels quite solid and very clear, does a decent job removing glare and adds really nice contrast, A good way to get an idea of what a poliser can do is put on a pair of polerized sunglasses. Then look at comthong and tilt your head left and right, may sound silly..but works. You will see that on glass you tilt one way and you can't see through it at laa and get nothing but glare, and the other way it looks like there is no glare. Same works on roads or any other surface affected by light some things like LCD displays will have a Polerized coating which will also have a very unique apperance. Now something to remember if your like me and wear sunglasses that are polerised almost all the time when out side, and add a polerizer to you lense, you will need to take the sunglasses off as you will prolly not be able to see much or anyting through the viewfinder./ For the best results try getting a filter manufactured by the same people who made your lense if they make one...that seems to be the best |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 05:39:48 PM · #18 |
My experiences of Polarising filters:
Tiffen - Cack! You get what you pay for. In this case, some sort of by-product from a steelworks slag heap. Uneven glass, indifferent performance, thread tolerances in the +/- 20% range. Otherwise marvellous.
Hoya/Kenko - Okay. Tolerance decent enough, glass is always good but sometimes Hoya polarisers give a muddy blue look to some scenes on some films (not seen the effect on digital yet).
Nikon - Excellent. The best ergonomics of any polarising filters I have tried. Decent manufacturing and tolerances, great glass as you'd expect. Can be difficult to clean if they get marked. Wonderful effect.
B&W - I have only ever bought the most expensive B&W range. The finest machining you'll get, smooth anodized brass mounts, better glass and effects than the Nikons, the multi-coating is less prone to flare than any other polarisers I have tried.
If you're going to put another piece of glass in front of your expensive lenses you owe it to yourself to use something good. Nokon, Canon, B&W make filters at many times hte prices of Tiffen or Hoya but they're worth it.
Roger |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 05:40:37 PM · #19 |
... so good I posted it twice ... ;)
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 17:41:37. |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 07:29:59 PM · #20 |
Hey I was just looking at some of my polarizers in front of my lcd monitor, and wow it will help find the dust. My kids thaink this is soo cool.
Back to the point. Outdoor photographers who brave the elements (dust, water sray etc) should consider a Kaesemann mounted filter. It is more expensive than normal multicoated filters, but well worth it for durability. Of course at this price point it also has the best glass & coatings. |
|
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: 08/24/2025 04:09:31 PM EDT.
