Polarizers?

sween · Jul 3, 2009

Driving to a mall today, my wife handed me a pair of old sunglasses. I'd forgotten mine and am clueless where these came from, but they had to have been purchased at least ten years.

To my near astonishment, this pair of sunglasses had polarized lenses, cheap as they were, which just punched up some of the cloud formations today enormously. In fact, some of the clouds were nothing short of spectacular, made especially so by the glasses.

Soooooooo, I got to wondering, and do not know the answer, about CPs for dSLRS. Do they make any sense? Does anyone here use a CP on their dSLR? If so, what brand and model?

Any input greatly appreciated. Thanks!

dxqcanada · Jul 3, 2009

I do.
Most landscape photographers have one handy.

Hoya (not their cheap ones), B+W, Schneider ...

Garbz · Jul 4, 2009

CPLs make just as much sense for a DSLR as any other camera. It's an effect that can not be duplicated in software and must me done in optically.

If you buy only one filter ever I recommend it's a good quality polariser like a Hoya SHMC CPL or a Kenko KMC CPL on your wide angle lens.

Big Mike · Jul 6, 2009

Polarizers are one of the 'best' filters...especially for DSLR cameras. Primarily because a polarizer is one of the only filters that can't be easily replicated with digital editing. It's essentially the only filter I ever use anymore on a regular basis.

And yes, polarized sunglasses are great. You can probably replicate the effect of rotating a circular polarizing filter by rotating your head. I do that all the time while driving around, just to see the effect it has on the sky/clouds.

Just don't try to shoot with a CPL filter and the sunglasses on....it doesn't work. :lol:

03civicdx · Jul 6, 2009

i never leave home with out one.

icassell · Jul 6, 2009

Big Mike said:
Just don't try to shoot with a CPL filter and the sunglasses on....it doesn't work.

I was in Alaska a few weeks ago and had that once-in-a-lifetime (read that as outrageously expensive) opportunity to land on the Ruth Glacier next to Mt. McKinley in a small plane (Cessna 185). Imagine my horror as I looked through the viewfinder only to see all sorts of bizarre colors on the image. I was sure the windows on the plane were messed up. Then I realized that I was wearing polarizing sunglasses and I had my CP on the lens. I took the glasses off and all was well with the world and I got some great shots. The CP really added impact to some of them (as well as taking a few hours off my life until I figured out what was wrong).

Arkanjel Imaging · Jul 6, 2009

Big Mike said:
Polarizers are one of the 'best' filters...especially for DSLR cameras. Primarily because a polarizer is one of the only filters that can't be easily replicated with digital editing. It's essentially the only filter I ever use anymore on a regular basis.

x2

I use a polarizer just about anywhere I have the f stop range to. Makes for much richer colors.

Canosonic · Jul 7, 2009

Here is the same scene with and without Pol effects:
Without

With:

I made these to prove to my friends that this 50-dollar-piece-of-glace is worth it!

benhasajeep · Jul 7, 2009

Polarized sunglasses have been around for a long time. One of the original uses were for fishermen so they can reduce the glare on water and see below the surface.

CPL's for cameras do the same. They do more than just help with darkening sky. They help control reflections off objects and water. I also agree on having a good CPL. I have a B+W for my main lenses and a couple off brand ones. And there is a difference.

sween · Jul 11, 2009

Hey, thanks for all the input on CPLs. You've pretty much convinced me I need to have one for my dSLR. I have two already, but neither will fit my 72mm needs. Soooooooo, it's time to buy.

Can we talk brand and model, please. I am well aware of all the arguments against putting cheap glass in front of expensive glass, and do believe that doing so makes no sense at all, but I also don't want to spend somewhere around $200(US), when a Tiffen or Hoya in the $35-40 range will suit my needs. Whatever CPL I buy won't be on my camera all the time, and it won't take a beating.

Any help appreciated here. Thanks...

Arkanjel Imaging · Jul 11, 2009

Personally I wont use crappy filters. A great lens is only as good as the filter in front of it. CPL's arent cheap but the better ones are definitely worth the $$.

benhasajeep · Jul 11, 2009

For filters its a good idea to buy good ones. As a bad piece of glass or plastic in some cases will make your lens a bad lens.

Also the better polarizers have multicoatings. This is important as it helps prevent / cut down on lens flare and stray light reflections bouncing around between the filter glass and lens glass.

Hoya and B+W make very good filters that are multicoated. One thing you can do is buy a filter that fits your largest lens say 77mm (just an example). And buy reducers for it to fit your smaller lenses (62-77, 58-77, etc..). The reducers are only about $15. This way you can buy a very good filter, and still use it on all your other lenses without spending a fortune.

Also there is a difference in the cheap filters and good ones. I have a B+W filter for my larger lenses 77mm. As I started to use more than one body and my wife started to take pics. I picked up some other polarizers at local photo shops. These were all private label brand filters (some were highly touted to be very good for the price). But after comparing them to the B+W there is a noticeable difference. I have several reducers and can use the 77mm on any of my lenses as I suggested above. We still use a couple of the cheaper CPL's, but when we really want to try and make a good shot, we will put the B+W on.

sween · Jul 11, 2009

I'm going to wade into a murky part of the pool here and ask where the proof lies?

Old sayings like "the proof is in the pudding" and "where the rubber meets the road" both mean about the same thing - results count and little else does.

Believe me, I am a big fan of buying quality gear, always have been. I own plenty of it. That said, is dumping a pile on a CPL going to give me noticeable results as opposed to dumping half a pile into one?

I'm seeing Hoyas and B+Ws upwards of $150, when Tiffens and other Hoyas are running around $50 or less.

Seeing how many of us are far more cautious with money in this economy, I'd just as soon save a $100 than spend it right now.

Let me impose and ask one more question: Can anyone here say that going with a respected brand name CPL in a lower price range will compromise the sharpness of my digital images, the ones created with a D200 and a Nikon 18-200mm DX VR? Thanks again!

benhasajeep · Jul 11, 2009

The only example I can give between my B+W and a no-name filter (made in Korea). The Korean filter does not have as much of an effect on the scene. Best way to describe this is the sky is not as blue. Also the effect of the korean filter is not as consistant. In other words its lighter in one area than another with the same intensity. There is a difference at least between the ones I have. Also the multicoating is needed. Not in every scene, but there will be a time where you are pointing in the direction of the sun and your going to get light spots in the shot.

For someone who is watching their hard earned money, I wont argue that buying a cheaper CPL is better than no CPL. As I feel even a cheap one will help take better pictures. But, if a person has the opportunity to buy a good one right off the bat. In the long run they will be better off.

I have cheaper CPL's, partially because I want to save money and partially where I purchased them, they were the only option. And as I said above I have rings so that I can use my good one on any lens I currently have when I have the want or need too.

sween · Jul 12, 2009

One thing you can do is buy a filter that fits your largest lens say 77mm (just an example). And buy reducers for it to fit your smaller lenses (62-77, 58-77, etc..). The reducers are only about $15

Amazingly, you reminded me of step-up and step-down rings, which I had completely forgotten since I made the move to digital about five years ago.

So, I went rummaging around in my gear cabinet and found all kinds of rings, filters that I had likewise completely forgotten(most all of them for black and white), and a pile of other "gadgets" that most of us have to have at some point or another. What really struck me is how much had been left behind when I stopped burning film. (I still have several rolls of Velvia and 120 Portra sitting in the fridge.)

Anyway, I dug out a Cokin CPL that has to be ten years old and mounted it on an older 35-80mm Nikkor and hung it on my D200 and did some test shots. To my eye, all looked fine, the results were what I was hoping they'd be.

In the end, I ordered a Hoya 72mm CPL through Amazon, where I found it for around forty-five bucks total, roughly twenty bucks less than most other places. While it ain't the high-end best, I'm figuring it'll do what I need. If it sucks, it goes back. Amazon is quite good about returns, even with third-party retailers. If it sucks, I will indeed invest the hundred and a half or so in a multi-coated CPL. But like I said before, I don't beat up my gear, I don't hammer nails with it, so my need for something bullet-proof isn't great. Thanks! And I will let you know how it works...