Advice on circular polarizer?

MDesigner

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I'm looking for a circular polarizer.. I've read in several places that they're pretty important to have. I've had my eye on a Tiffen 67mm filter, runs for about $50, but it's not coated and some people claim it causes glare in some situations. I'm not to keen on spending $130 for a polarizer, but the ones that are MC (multi coated) go for at least $80'ish. Is it worth it? Or will the Tiffen work ok for me?
 
I'm looking for a circular polarizer.. I've read in several places that they're pretty important to have. I've had my eye on a Tiffen 67mm filter, runs for about $50, but it's not coated and some people claim it causes glare in some situations. I'm not to keen on spending $130 for a polarizer, but the ones that are MC (multi coated) go for at least $80'ish. Is it worth it? Or will the Tiffen work ok for me?
I'm a firm believer in the benefits to a polarizer. However, if that's your option, you're better off without one.
 
I posted some before and after samples in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121907

I'm pretty sure that's just a cheap crappy uncoated 52mm Quantaray (Ritz brand) circular polarizer that I was using on my 18-55 kit lens. I'll double check tonight and report back. Cost me a whole $29.99 and it works fine. :) An uncoated CP filter in the appropriate situation is definitely much better than no polarizer at all.
 
I'm a firm believer in the benefits to a polarizer. However, if that's your option, you're better off without one.

Just so I'm clear.. you're saying if my only option is the $50 Tiffen, I'm better off without it?

Can anyone recommend a good polarizer somewhere between $50 and $130?
 
I would disagree. I have some uncoated and some coated and haven't had trouble with the uncoated ones. You DO want a polarizer, though, if you shoot outdoors at all.
 
Just so I'm clear.. you're saying if my only option is the $50 Tiffen, I'm better off without it?
That's my opinion but you should read Mav's post and take a look at his examples. He pretty much shoots me down (although I'll still stick with high-end glass).

Edit: Icassell just chimed in to support Mav's position.
 
One other way of looking at it is this and an arguement for getting a B&W or other high-end MC filter --

You spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on your lens -- do you want to put a cheap piece of glass between it and your subject?
 
One other way of looking at it is this and an arguement for getting a B&W or other high-end MC filter --

You spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on your lens -- do you want to put a cheap piece of glass between it and your subject?
That's exactly the logic that I use when I buy Hoya Pro-1 series filters! Heck, my 72mm CP cost me $175.
 
One other way of looking at it is this and an arguement for getting a B&W or other high-end MC filter --

You spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on your lens -- do you want to put a cheap piece of glass between it and your subject?

Well, lenses that cost $600-$1000+ are typically better quality optics than lenses that cost $100-$200. You can definitely see the quality difference in the photos taken. Either that, or the pricier lenses are super fast (f/1.2, etc). The question is, when it comes to a $50 filter compared to a $150 filter, can you see a difference? Could someone post photos where we could easily see the $150 filter blows away the $50 filter? I'm not convinced until I see verifiable proof.
 
One other way of looking at it is this and an arguement for getting a B&W or other high-end MC filter --

You spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on your lens -- do you want to put a cheap piece of glass between it and your subject?
If the cheap filters don't degrade your image quality and does what you need it to, why spend more? The only thing I wouldn't recommend is misc. ebay garbage because only God knows where some of that stuff comes from, or to what standards they were built.
 
If the cheap filters don't degrade your image quality and does what you need it to, why spend more?

"Why spend more"?
Because it looks as if you were just simply lucky with your 'cheap' CP, mav (in that thread). Buying 'cheap' is hit and miss. If you spend more – on an A-brand CP – you minimize the risk factor.
 
"Why spend more"?
Because it looks as if you were just simply lucky with your 'cheap' CP, mav (in that thread). Buying 'cheap' is hit and miss. If you spend more – on an A-brand CP – you minimize the risk factor.
I have a ton of cheap filters that aren't even coated and have never had a problem with any of them, and I don't think anybody else really does either unless they really go out of their ways to intentionally create problems and exaggerate them. BTW when i say "cheap" I'm talking about non-coated stuff that's still a name brand, or the stuff you buy at Ritz. I'm not talking about eBay garbage. That may very well be a matter of luck and hit or miss.
 
Let me clarify my comment --

It was a rhetorical question as I have many non-coated filters in my bag. Maybe I've just gotten lucky. Some people also get lucky with cheap lenses. I'm just stating one arguement for the more expensive ones.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top