DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 77mm Circular Polarizer?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/09/2005 05:32:39 PM · #1
I know, I am full of questions! Here is another:
I just received my 70-200mm 2.8 L IS lens. The booklet says if I use a circular polarizer, to use the Canon 77mm PL-C. Any clue why? Is it L glass as well?

Thanks :)
11/09/2005 05:36:55 PM · #2
They want to sell you their very expensive filter. Any decent polarizing filter will do as well. You have toi be doing really, really critical work to see any difference between mid-range and high-end polarizers. It's true, however, that the real expensive ones are without exception silky-smooth to operate, where some of the cheaper ones can feel a little gritty.

R.
11/09/2005 05:40:31 PM · #3
Thanks so much. I think this is what I have for my 28-135 IS as well as my 75-300mm IS.Filter

Will that do? When I bought my others, the lady at Ritz told me that HOYA makes them for ritz.


11/09/2005 05:43:40 PM · #4
Originally posted by JRalston:

Thanks so much. I think this is what I have for my 28-135 IS as well as my 75-300mm IS.Filter

Will that do? When I bought my others, the lady at Ritz told me that HOYA makes them for ritz.


If you're satisfied with these filters on your other lenses, you'll be satisfied with them on the 70-200, yes. Quantaray is Ritz's "house brand", and according to the lady Hoya makes the filters for Quantaray. Hoya are OK filters. Nothing special, but inexpensive.

Robt.
11/09/2005 05:47:33 PM · #5
Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by JRalston:



If you're satisfied with these filters on your other lenses, you'll be satisfied with them on the 70-200, yes. Quantaray is Ritz's "house brand", and according to the lady Hoya makes the filters for Quantaray. Hoya are OK filters. Nothing special, but inexpensive.

Robt.


Thanks....Any others you recommend? I do not want to degrade the image the L lens will give me by using a low quality filter.
11/09/2005 05:48:18 PM · #6
Taking "Canon 77mm PL-C" in reverse order
PL-c - you need a circular polarizer, not a linear one
77mm - it has to fit your lens
Canon - you need to give your money to Canon, not the other guys ;-)

I don't know if you'll need a multicoated filter or not (there's been discussion both ways on this) but the multicoating is claimed to reduce glare and internal refraction, and if you are using a polarizing filter, you're proabably using it on a sunny day. Besides, if you spent that much on a lens, why cheap out on the polarizer?
11/09/2005 05:48:21 PM · #7
You certainly don't need to buy the Canon, any good brand will do. I would buy a multi-coated version, especially since there are two glass layers involved with a C-Pol filter. A decent 77mm polarizer is not an inexpensive thing. The good thing is, you buy it once. Many of the L lenses have 77mm threads, so it will be useful across quite a few lenses. You can also use a step-up ring to mount it on lenses that have a somewhat smaller thread.
My strategy has been to have two polarizers, a 58mm (another common Canon thread size) and the 77mm (I have a B+W) and that covers pretty much all my lenses.
11/09/2005 06:43:22 PM · #8
Can anyone link me to a good one or two? Thanks :)
11/09/2005 06:45:02 PM · #9
It's expensive!!
11/09/2005 06:48:00 PM · #10
LOL, thats fine.
11/09/2005 07:02:01 PM · #11
I have one for sale. (shameless self-promotion)
11/09/2005 07:45:21 PM · #12
Originally posted by JRalston:

Can anyone link me to a good one or two? Thanks :)

B&H hase two pages worth of 77mm C-Pl ranging from $54 to $300. I think B+W is going to be between $110 and $175 depending on whether you get multicoated or not.
B&H
11/09/2005 07:49:15 PM · #13
I have the Quantaray 77mm CP filter... no problems -- I like it a lot! I don't see the need to pay extra for a different brand name.
11/09/2005 07:57:02 PM · #14
Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by JRalston:

Thanks so much. I think this is what I have for my 28-135 IS as well as my 75-300mm IS.Filter

Will that do? When I bought my others, the lady at Ritz told me that HOYA makes them for ritz.


If you're satisfied with these filters on your other lenses, you'll be satisfied with them on the 70-200, yes. Quantaray is Ritz's "house brand", and according to the lady Hoya makes the filters for Quantaray. Hoya are OK filters. Nothing special, but inexpensive.

Robt.


Quantary is Ritz's house brand but is made by Sigma. Hoya filters are made by THK (Tokina Hoya Kenko). And while the Hoya standard filter is of average quality, the HMC line is on par with B+W. I have several of the HMC and a few of the SHMC Pro-1 range (the really pricey beasts) and have to say they are excellent filters.
11/09/2005 09:16:30 PM · #15
wee bit off topic,
but before we start recommending $150 CPL filters instead of $40 CPL filters, has anyone done test of the same shot with the cheap and the expensive filters to see if there are any visible improvement of the more expensive filter?
11/09/2005 09:18:45 PM · #16
Originally posted by yido:

wee bit off topic,
but before we start recommending $150 CPL filters instead of $40 CPL filters, has anyone done test of the same shot with the cheap and the expensive filters to see if there are any visible improvement of the more expensive filter?


I think I saw something like that for UV filters once, but I have no idea where.
11/09/2005 09:55:41 PM · #17
Originally posted by yido:

wee bit off topic,
but before we start recommending $150 CPL filters instead of $40 CPL filters, has anyone done test of the same shot with the cheap and the expensive filters to see if there are any visible improvement of the more expensive filter?


I'd be very interested in this if someone has a link or shots. I am primarily a people shooter, but do take the occasional landscape shot which often needs a polarizer.
11/09/2005 09:59:50 PM · #18
Dude, if landscape is not your bread and butter, get the $40 polarizer by all means. With or without tests, I'm sure it is at least 95% as good as the expensive ones.

I just bought a Sunpak 77mm for $43. It works just fine. In fact, my landscape shot was taken with it, it's sitting at 7.08 right now. ;) I don't think it would do much better with the $150 polarizer...
11/09/2005 10:45:22 PM · #19
Originally posted by kearock:

Originally posted by yido:

wee bit off topic,
but before we start recommending $150 CPL filters instead of $40 CPL filters, has anyone done test of the same shot with the cheap and the expensive filters to see if there are any visible improvement of the more expensive filter?


I think I saw something like that for UV filters once, but I have no idea where.


That was me, I tested a Bigma with a cheap UV filter vs. nothing. I and most couldn't tell which was which.

Never done one with a cheap vs. expensive CPL's. I've only cheap ones.
I also agree with a prior poster, if you occassionally shoot landscapes and occassionally need a CPL, a cheap one from Hoya or something might be just fine. If you are a professional landscape photographer who uses it on a routine basis and make big prints, perhaps a $150 CPL may be a good investment.

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 22:48:40.
11/09/2005 10:47:10 PM · #20
Having an uncalibrated monitor is worse then a cheap filter.
11/09/2005 11:06:55 PM · #21
Originally posted by faidoi:

Having an uncalibrated monitor is worse then a cheap filter.


"Spyder 2" should be here tomorrow ;o)
11/09/2005 11:08:28 PM · #22
Originally posted by faidoi:

Having an uncalibrated monitor is worse then a cheap filter.


I think I am leaning towards getting an ok polarizer vs the greatest being that I do not shoot landscapes all that often. Although, moving to Guam may convince me otherwise. So pretty there.

Jenn
11/09/2005 11:08:29 PM · #23
Originally posted by JRalston:

Originally posted by faidoi:

Having an uncalibrated monitor is worse then a cheap filter.


"Spyder 2" should be here tomorrow ;o)


Post your results. I'm thinking about getting one myself.
11/09/2005 11:10:15 PM · #24
Originally posted by faidoi:

Originally posted by JRalston:

Originally posted by faidoi:

Having an uncalibrated monitor is worse then a cheap filter.


"Spyder 2" should be here tomorrow ;o)


Post your results. I'm thinking about getting one myself.


Alright. I am so curious how off my monitor is. I've done the best I can with Adobe Gamma but I wanted something more precise.
11/10/2005 09:35:55 AM · #25
Originally posted by yido:

wee bit off topic,
but before we start recommending $150 CPL filters instead of $40 CPL filters, has anyone done test of the same shot with the cheap and the expensive filters to see if there are any visible improvement of the more expensive filter?


Someone posted one recently, but IIRC, they were comparing sharpness. I'd like to see a comparison for ghosting and flare.

Just found this site: //www.astrosurf.org/lombry/reports-coating.htm

They claim that Multi-coating improves transmisability (the amount of light that gets through the lens) by a couple of percent because less light is lost in reflections. (Others claim up to 35% loss, but that seems quite high.)

While transmisability isn't so important in a polarizer, ghosting and flare are, and the less reflection, the less noticable ghosting and flare will be.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/29/2021 09:41:45 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/29/2021 09:41:45 AM EDT.