Multi-coated polarizers vs... um... not?

[manaheim]

So I was bumming around in Rockport, MA and I saw a camera shop. OOOOO!!! CAMERA SHOP!!!

Anyway, I bopped in and struck up a convo with the shop owner who was very pleased to see I had a D300 but HORRIFIED to see I had a non-multicoated CPOL on my camera. He explained to me that it was "wrong" and simply was not going to give me what I needed, and that I needed one of these $200 ones over here.

Now...

1. Clearly the dude was a salesman, so I can't take anything he says without some caution.
2. Clearly my Promaster CPOL works...
3. I strongly suspect how much the dude knows since he considered my 18-200 3.5/5.6 AFS VR "really good glass". I mean, it's a fine lens, don't get me wrong, but "really good glass"? Not.

So the question is... how much of a difference is there, if any? What is so great? I thought the multicoated CPOLs were mainly just more rugged, but I have no idea... generally speaking I'm not about to spend $200 on a filter, but... maybe... someday.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

 

[benhasajeep]

Multicoating does a couple things. One offers scratch protection when cleaning the filter (straight from B+W).

But the biggest thing is it helps reduce flare / ghosting. Helps reduce light reflections from bouncing around between lens and filter.

If you have had not issues with ghosting or flare. I guess there is no rush to getting a multicoated one. There are good ones available for about $100 depending on your size. Hoya has a good process and not quite as much as B+W.

 

[Garbz]

Indeed a multi-coated polariser is almost needed when shooting directly into the light to try and preserve contrast in the image. However that doesn't mean you need a $200 one. You could pick up the excellent quality Hoya Pro1 CPL about 77mm for $90 off ebay. But even a cheaper Hoya SHMC will do quite well.

 

[manaheim]

Thanks, all. So would I only see a real noticable effect when shooting directly into the light?

 

[tirediron]

Thanks, all. So would I only see a real noticable effect when shooting directly into the light?

That's likely when you'll see the greatest effect; it really depends on the quality of the filter.

 

[benhasajeep]

Thanks, all. So would I only see a real noticable effect when shooting directly into the light?

Could be any angle where the strong light directly enters the lens. Can be caused by bright lighs as well as sunlight. Hoods also help keep the light entering from angles. Hood and a multicoated filter would offer the most resistance to flare and ghosting.

 

[manaheim]

Interesting... since my experience with CPOLs is generally that the best time to use them is when the sun is NOT coming directly into the lens. The effects are seriously limited by this scenario. In fact, I think I'd be inclined to use an ND filter in this situation over a CPOL.

I must be missing something.

 

[Sn00bies]

Interesting... since my experience with CPOLs is generally that the best time to use them is when the sun is NOT coming directly into the lens. The effects are seriously limited by this scenario. In fact, I think I'd be inclined to use an ND filter in this situation over a CPOL.

I must be missing something.

I agree with you completely. Shooting into the sun with a CPOL is basically counter productive. I myself am missing the point of the multi-coating in the scenario of reducing flare/ghosting while shooting into direct light - why use a CPOL in the first place, other than maybe the possible slight ND effect you can get from the darkened glass?

Then again, I'm not sure what the chances are of ghosting/flaring when at 90deg to the sun though w/o a hood? Seems slim to none.

 

[MattxMosh]

So I was bumming around in Rockport, MA and I saw a camera shop. OOOOO!!! CAMERA SHOP!!!

Where in Rockport?

I'm going to be staying there a few days in September for a wedding, I might need some toys, er, supplies.

 

[musicaleCA]

Then again, I'm not sure what the chances are of ghosting/flaring when at 90deg to the sun though w/o a hood? Seems slim to none.

If you have a strong light coming at the lens sideways from out of frame, the chance of flare is pretty nasty, and far worse without the hood. Simple solution though; get a hood. Then life is good.

 

[Sn00bies]

Then again, I'm not sure what the chances are of ghosting/flaring when at 90deg to the sun though w/o a hood? Seems slim to none.

If you have a strong light coming at the lens sideways from out of frame, the chance of flare is pretty nasty, and far worse without the hood. Simple solution though; get a hood. Then life is good.

So is it safe to say that one could conclude that you don't need the multi-coated if you are able to use a hood? And therefore the multi-coated isn't useful except in situations(?) when you can't use a hood...?

 

[benhasajeep]

Interesting... since my experience with CPOLs is generally that the best time to use them is when the sun is NOT coming directly into the lens. The effects are seriously limited by this scenario. In fact, I think I'd be inclined to use an ND filter in this situation over a CPOL.

I must be missing something.

I agree with you completely. Shooting into the sun with a CPOL is basically counter productive. I myself am missing the point of the multi-coating in the scenario of reducing flare/ghosting while shooting into direct light - why use a CPOL in the first place, other than maybe the possible slight ND effect you can get from the darkened glass?

Then again, I'm not sure what the chances are of ghosting/flaring when at 90deg to the sun though w/o a hood? Seems slim to none.

You have reflection off the water/ glass/ shiny metal. If the light is bright enough you can get ghosting and or flare. Also, you can get flare / ghosting if even though the sun is not in the viewfinder, the sun can still enter the lens from an angle and start bouncing around. Hoods do not cover the entire gap either.

 

[Garbz]

I agree with you completely. Shooting into the sun with a CPOL is basically counter productive. I myself am missing the point of the multi-coating in the scenario of reducing flare/ghosting while shooting into direct light - why use a CPOL in the first place, other than maybe the possible slight ND effect you can get from the darkened glass?

Polarising effects do more than just darken the sky at 90degrees from the sun. Even when shooting into the sun the polariser still has a great effect on water and metal surfaces. Also just because your shooting into the sun doesn't mean the surface that you're photographing is reflecting the sun. I.e. a car window that you cut through with a polariser may be reflecting the sky at a different angle and have nothing to do with the position of the sun.

If you have a strong light coming at the lens sideways from out of frame, the chance of flare is pretty nasty, and far worse without the hood. Simple solution though; get a hood. Then life is good.

Simple only if you have a fixed focal length lens. Most zoom lenses will not cover the side angles with the hood. E.g. classic entry level zooms like the 18-70mm, at 70mm the sun can easily be between the hood and the field of view. Assuming perfect tolerances there's actually 50degrees either side of the frame where the sun could effect the glass. The hood isn't a silver bullet unfortunately.

So is it safe to say that one could conclude that you don't need the multi-coated if you are able to use a hood? And therefore the multi-coated isn't useful except in situations(?) when you can't use a hood...?

Unfortunately given all that I have said there's one more issue. Mulicoating is only a feature of a product. You would likely find that Multicoated glass is of higher quality produced to tighter tolerances just like Nikons "N" coating is only available on top quality gold ring lenses. Hoya SHMC polarisers are not only better polarisers, have better coatings, but also feature a thinner profile, important especially on polarisers since they are such thick designs to begin with.

 

[musicaleCA]

If you have a strong light coming at the lens sideways from out of frame, the chance of flare is pretty nasty, and far worse without the hood. Simple solution though; get a hood. Then life is good.

Simple only if you have a fixed focal length lens. Most zoom lenses will not cover the side angles with the hood. E.g. classic entry level zooms like the 18-70mm, at 70mm the sun can easily be between the hood and the field of view. Assuming perfect tolerances there's actually 50degrees either side of the frame where the sun could effect the glass. The hood isn't a silver bullet unfortunately.[/quote]

Yeah, I know. I was overgeneralizing a little. IMO the hood is the simplest solution for reducing the risk of flare. And this is one of the reasons I'm really digging the reverse zoom of the EF 24-70mm L USM. The more you zoom in, the more hood is in the way to prevent flare but without vignetting. (And I think it's kinda cute that the front element hides when it's zooming in...but that's a purely aesthetic thing.)

 

[Garbz]

Hhaha yeah I don't know why some people hate that. I saw a review site say negatively that the Nikon 28-70 has the same "stupid" zooming mechanism. Heck it's there for a reason