| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2007 10:57:15 AM · #1 |
| How many people recommend buying one? After getting my 12-24 Tokina I went in to get a lens. I wanted a protector lens (I'm being cautious)...and then started looking at the circular polarizer filters. At 100USD, I was a bit surprised. I'm not sure that this is the average price. I'm curious as to how well they actually work. Anyone? |
|
|
|
06/05/2007 11:01:02 AM · #2 |
They work well at taking glare out of windows, glass, water, and in bringing back the sky from being awash.
Pretty expensive protector imo.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 11:01:43 AM · #3 |
Im not sure about the polarizers but I just use UV filters to protect mine.
-dave |
|
|
|
06/05/2007 11:03:19 AM · #4 |
They work great at about 18mm and up. Anything wider than that and there is just too much in the shot that doesn't get polarized. If you want protection, you don't want a polarizer...polarizers actually make you lose stops of light. You just want a UV filter.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 11:09:18 AM · #5 |
| I bought a regular protector lens at 40USD |
|
|
|
06/05/2007 11:19:02 AM · #6 |
If all you really want is to keep from banging the lens and scratching it, You should get a lens hood.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 11:30:12 AM · #7 |
I just got a Hoya Pro 1 CPL for my Tokina 12-24mm. I have to admit that while some photos benefited from it, some suffered. However, I think it's good to have one, but you really have to pay attention to sun's position and rotate the CPL accordingly.
I used CPL here
   
I have many more photos taken with Tokina and CPL, but I haven't gotten around to upload them yet.
Message edited by author 2007-06-05 11:41:44.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 11:38:42 AM · #8 |
| I bought one that was much cheaper than $100 and it seems to work fine. The effect isn't always apparent, it all depends on the angle of the lighting. But I'm glad I bought mine. |
|
|
|
06/05/2007 12:05:27 PM · #9 |
I have a CP Filter. They do work well to knock down reflections in glass and water. They also take glare out of leaves etc and can make the colour more vibrant. This is evident in images taken that include a blue sky.
They are not good for all images though. The do stop your shots down a couple of stops and can be the cause of vignetting. They are most effective at 90 degrees to the sun and not effective for multi-shot panos. The vignetting caused is to hard to remove from the panos.
As previously stated, if you want to protect your glass, buy a UV Filter. Just a piece of glass that has no other use than to protect your glass. I picked one up here in AUS for about $30 AUD. They never come off of my lenses and any other filters just screw in over the top.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 12:36:54 PM · #10 |
L Landscape, Polarizer
Link for you. I use a CPL a lot, as I shoot outdoors most of the time. They help a lot with controlling the sky, and with reflections from water, metal or glass. I use one with a lot of my sunsets to help bring out the red/blue contrast as well. Sometimes the effect is small, and other times it is a lot. There is a dot on the edge of the lens that you orient to the light source for the best effect.
There are CPL and linear polarizers. Linear ones worked well before auto focus, but you need CPL's with todays cameras.
The ones that I use I found on eBay, used, for about 1/2 of the new price.
This image shows the "banding" effect in the sky that can happen with wide lenses.
UV filters work well for protection, but can cause reflections thru the lens system and off the sensor if you are shooting directly into a point light source like into the sun at sunset. You can always remove the filter for a shot though if you feel that it will do that.
Good luck with getting what is right for your use.
Message edited by author 2007-06-05 12:50:45.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 12:45:48 PM · #11 |
As a lot have already said, if you are looking for protection to your new lens you should probably go with a UV filter or a lens hood, or both. Personally I shoot the majority of my shoots with a CPL on my glass because I like the option of being able to remove glare from water, or punch up the blue in the image.
Also, when using a CPL you will get the greatest effect when perpendicular (90 degrees) to the light source and the effect will lessen as you rotate closer. Just a little tid-bit of information. |
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:04:17 PM · #12 |
not just a tid-bit. this is KEY...
Originally posted by djtj980:
Also, when using a CPL you will get the greatest effect when perpendicular (90 degrees) to the light source and the effect will lessen as you rotate closer. Just a little tid-bit of information. |
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:07:43 PM · #13 |
| One thing to remember about polarizers and reflections... a polarizer will *not* reduce reflections off of metal surfaces. It has to do with the physics of the surface; light reflected from metal surfaces is not polarized. |
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:08:40 PM · #14 |
More than you want to know //dpfwiw.com/polarizer.htm
For protection - UV. Also, for Tokina you should look for Low Profile Filters (LPF) or thin filters to reduce vignetting.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:10:23 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
One thing to remember about polarizers and reflections... a polarizer will *not* reduce reflections off of metal surfaces. It has to do with the physics of the surface; light reflected from metal surfaces is not polarized. |
Me want be smart like kirbic when me evolve :) |
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:11:38 PM · #16 |
is this because metal doesn't absorb any wavelengths of light, but merely reflects all?
Originally posted by kirbic:
One thing to remember about polarizers and reflections... a polarizer will *not* reduce reflections off of metal surfaces. It has to do with the physics of the surface; light reflected from metal surfaces is not polarized. |
Message edited by author 2007-06-05 13:11:48.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:19:22 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
One thing to remember about polarizers and reflections... a polarizer will *not* reduce reflections off of metal surfaces. It has to do with the physics of the surface; light reflected from metal surfaces is not polarized. |
Won't it still cut the overall amount of reflection by the same 1.3 or so stops as a neutral-density filter? |
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:25:55 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by soup:
is this because metal doesn't absorb any wavelengths of light, but merely reflects all? |
It's cause metallic surfaces scatter light waves and make polarized light unpolarized. So you can cancel one direction of light, but there will be many others that will still stand out. This is similar to how it's difficult to cut glare on a choppy surface of water. Horizontal surfaces, like water, have horizontally polarized planes while vertical surfaces, like windows, have vertical planes. These surfaces directly reflect either the horizontal or vertical planes while absorbing the other. Metallic surfaces do not have this property so they reflect everything. It's a property of the material.
Edit to correct myself.
Message edited by author 2007-06-05 13:32:08.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:29:23 PM · #19 |
how about on a concave metal surface. think of a piece of mirror shiny sheet metal rolled into parabala that is at the perfect curve?
ETA: i guess the source of light would have to be at the perfect angle as well...
ETA A: the light source wouldn't matter if the parabala were repeated to make a bowl that is perfect. any refelcted light would have to be focused to a floating point inside the bowl. sort of like how a satellite dish works...?
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
It's cause metallic surfaces scatter light waves and make polarized light unpolarized. So you can cancel one direction of light, but there will be many others that will still stand out. |
Message edited by author 2007-06-05 14:29:28.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:33:54 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by soup:
how about on a convex metal surface. think of a piece of mirror shiny sheet metal rolled into parabala that is at the perfect curve?
ETA: i guess the source of light would have to be at the perfect angle as well... |
Right, it would have to be at the perfect angle and the surface would have to be perfectly smooth with no imperfections and a perfect curve. If all those criteria are met, then yes it could be possible. But the perfect surface doesn't exist. :)
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:36:36 PM · #21 |
then we need to make it ;}
ETA: or figure out how to work with the materials imperfections...
Message edited by author 2007-06-05 13:38:29.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:37:19 PM · #22 |
Outside a UV filter to protect your lens a polarizer is absolutely the first filter to purchase if outdoor photography is your 'thing'.
However, if you have a circular polarizer and typically do NOT make adjustments with it before taking pictures then don't bother putting it on.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:38:32 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by soup:
then we need to make it ;} |
Well thinking about it some more, wouldn't a shiny convex surface scatter MORE light than a flat one?
|
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:38:57 PM · #24 |
Actually, it still wouldn't work. The polarization would still be random.
ETA, it's not about scattering as we normally think of it. It's randomization of the polarization angle. The polarization of a photon is simply the plane in which the quantum wave is oriented.
Message edited by author 2007-06-05 13:40:36. |
|
|
|
06/05/2007 01:39:45 PM · #25 |
use your hand like a hand gun, and point at the light source. the arrow on the filter should aligned with where your thumb is pointing...
|
|
