CPL filter, why are my pics so soft with it?

[2WheelPhoto]

I'm traveling across the country on a bike and the sun in the desert out west here at "high noon" is brutal and I can't wait around for golden hours as I go.

I bought a B&W CPL in Vegas to help with at least "snap shot" quality photos to remember the trip.

As I was shooting between Vegas and LA, I noticed with my 24-70 lens my pics aren't as sharp when I use the filter?

Any suggestions? Here are 5 examples, 1st 3 are the pics I wanted to take for trip keepsake of stuff in the middle of nowhere. The next 2 were taken in a parking lot just trying to figure out WTH is going on (one at a big aperture and one at a small).

Any advice will be appreciated, I know I'm screwing it up and can't figure out how. Thanks from an FL boy in Sunny Cali!

Parking lot pics:

 

[kundalini]

The best way to determine this is to shoot the same subject with the same settings, on a tripod, one without the filter and one with the filter. Then take a 100% crop of a detailed area. I've never noticed any loss of sharpness with my B+W filters.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I'll try that, didn't think about doing that. It just seemed so obvious, I've shot a lot of pics with that saqme lens so far on this trip and as soon as I popped that filter on they went soft.

 

[Derrel]

Looks like the "snap shot quality" you wanted is what the filter brought to your lens... bummer, man, total bummer.

Was the filter you bought a "B&W" filter, or a "B+W" filter?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Looks like the "snap shot quality" you wanted is what the filter brought to your lens... bummer, man, total bummer.

Was the filter you bought a "B&W" filter, or a "B+W" filter?

Hmmm...box is out on the bike and i probably spelled it wrong. Filter says "made in Germany" and at the Vegas store i bent over and paid $139 for the 77mm flavor.

 

[Derrel]

Looks like the "snap shot quality" you wanted is what the filter brought to your lens... bummer, man, total bummer.

Was the filter you bought a "B&W" filter, or a "B+W" filter?

Hmmm...box is out on the bike and i probably spelled it wrong. Filter says "made in Germany" and at the Vegas store i bent over and paid $139 for the 77mm flavor.

Well, that additional information makes me think it's a genuine B+W filter...the filter world is FILLED with cheap-o, off-branded filters, some with names that are efforts to trade on well-known names. I'm not sure why it is, but it seems to me that short focal length lenses seem to reveal defects inj alignment on low-cost polarizers, more so than longer focal length lenses. Of course, the evidence I have is my own experience, anecdotal,and of limited sample size; I had a Hoya polarizer I used with my Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai-S wide-angle and other Nikon wides in the mid-1980s. The 24/Ai-S is known to be an excellent performer; however, with the HOYA POLARIZER, it shot like utter crap. Just total garbage. I mentioned that to my photo dealer at the time, and he set me up with an over-sized Nikon polarizer, which I still use to this day on my 24...problem totally,totally solved...I never used the Hoya again.

Perhaps the filter you got is defective?

 

[sleist]

Were you using the lens hood, or did you take it off to have easier access to the filter?

 

[KmH]

The better your technical understanding of how your photography gear works, the more consistant your results will become, and the fewer mysteries you will encounter.

$139 for a 77mm B+W filter could be a good price, particularly if you got a MRC version. B+W 77mm Kaeseman Circular Polarizing 66-045620 B&H Photo Video

B+W 77mm Circular Polarizer Multi-Resistant Coated 66-044844 B&H

B+W 77mm Kaeseman Circular Polarizing 66-025844 B&H Photo Video

You could have stepped up to the plate an got a top-of-the-line CPL like a Singh-Ray: Singh-Ray 77mm LB ColorCombo Warm Circular Polarizer/LB RT-6 B&H

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Thanks-

I'm with the box/filter now, the store put there decal over the part # but i see on the box its B+W 77 Professional Circular-Pol Coated. The store part # (and maybe the filter?) is 621620.

Even if its not top of the line, shouldn't the pics be "not so soft"?

The filter looks great, I'm still convinced it has to be something I'm doing to make them soft? When I get back to FL from this motorcycle venture I'm 4500 miles into already, I start photo certification courses at the university. I feel for miss teacher, this may be the 1st out of line thing I ask her about, among a bunch of other things.

I just really wanted some pics a little better than "point and shoot" during this trip. Friends that see the pics used to seeing facebook point and shoots are amazed anyway hehe


****edit I see the question above - I'm shooting hood off so its easy to turn the filter. Is that just wrong in this desert sun and hosing my pics?

 

[kundalini]

I'm a huge proponent of using the lens hood. You can run your finger on the inside of the hood until you reach the filter ring and then slowly turn. If you have stubby fingers, this may not be so easy with a long hood like a 70-200mm lens though. A light fingerprint on the edge of the filter won't likely be seen in your image.

 

[sleist]

Thanks-

****edit I see the question above - I'm shooting hood off so its easy to turn the filter. Is that just wrong in this desert sun and hosing my pics?

It's VERY possible. It will decrease contrast at the very least and possibly mess with auto focus accuracy - particularly with all reflected desert sun.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Thanks, looking forward to trying it with the hood.

 

[RichardsTPF]

Search " CPL lens hood", find this thread.
I put a 77mm CPL on my 72mm size 18-200mm with a step-up ring. It's hard to put on and take off the filter when the hood is on. Is it necessary to keep the hood on while using the CPL?
2WheelPhoto, How is the result with the hood? Does it improve the IQ?