Marumi CPL filter comparison

ulrichsd · Jun 9, 2011

Hi everyone, I've seen a lot of people suggest a CPL as a good filter so I picked up the Marumi (around $55 on Amazon), not familiar with the brand but seems to get some good reviews on-line. Here is a with and without comparison:

Thanks,
Scott

tirediron · Jun 9, 2011

Interesting...

Derrel · Jun 10, 2011

Interesting...as in...."hmmm....that doesn't look so hot to me?" Or interesting, as in "interesting"?

I'm not sure what's going on in the above scene, but it looks like there is a lot of purple fringing around the areas where the tree branches,leaves, and needles on the pine tree, stand out against the sky. ANd it's a bit hard to tell, but that tree in the middle of the frame--at the top of it, it almost looks like you;re getting a slight bit of flare from the sun...

ann · Jun 10, 2011

Last year I was going to be in an environment that I need I would need a CPL, more for controling glare on windows, but none the less one would be helpful.

I went to my vendor and tested every brand they carried. Shot the same scene with each and then took the card home and review them on my calibrated monitor and ended up with the Marumi. If I had gone with only what I saw on the LCD of the camera my choice would have been much different.

With my use, which has been limited, the results have been postive with no issue with CA. Of course everyone's milage will vary this is just my 2cents.

ulrichsd · Jun 10, 2011

Derrel said:
Interesting...as in...."hmmm....that doesn't look so hot to me?" Or interesting, as in "interesting"?

I'm not sure what's going on in the above scene, but it looks like there is a lot of purple fringing around the areas where the tree branches,leaves, and needles on the pine tree, stand out against the sky. ANd it's a bit hard to tell, but that tree in the middle of the frame--at the top of it, it almost looks like you;re getting a slight bit of flare from the sun...

Yes, I agree there is some CA/fringing, but I'm shooting this with the Tokina 12-24mm and that lens is known for CA so it could partly be that. I've also heard that using a CPL on a wide angle can also be an issue?

Also, I'm assuming there is a little loss in sharpness whenever adding any filter. I'll post some left corner shots later to see if that is more than normal. I was hoping for less loss in sharpness but I've never used filters before so this is my first time.

ulrichsd · Jun 10, 2011

ann said:
I went to my vendor and tested every brand they carried. Shot the same scene with each and then took the card home and review them on my calibrated monitor and ended up with the Marumi. If I had gone with only what I saw on the LCD of the camera my choice would have been much different.

Marumi makes two, one labeled "super" CPL and the other just CPL. I got the normal, but maybe should have gotten the super (about $100 vs $50).

The CA might be partly the lens, as I feel in the first photo (without CPL) you can pick up some purple fringing in the top right tree as well.

tyler_h · Jun 10, 2011

Purple fringing is definitely strong. It only looks worse in the shot with the CPL because the better exposure isn't blowing out the fringing - compare the tree on the far right; plenty of fringing in both...

Shouldn't there be profiles for the lens for whatever software you are using? Default profiles are pretty good on a lot of them.

tirediron · Jun 10, 2011

Derrel said:
Interesting...as in...."hmmm....that doesn't look so hot to me?" Or interesting, as in "interesting"?

I'm not sure what's going on in the above scene, but it looks like there is a lot of purple fringing around the areas where the tree branches,leaves, and needles on the pine tree, stand out against the sky. ANd it's a bit hard to tell, but that tree in the middle of the frame--at the top of it, it almost looks like you;re getting a slight bit of flare from the sun...

^^ That.

behanana · Jun 10, 2011

OK my question for to OP is if you are going to spend $100 on the super, why not drop the extra $50 or so on a B+H or quality name one? I'm not trying to an ass about this or anything, but I get the reason behind droping $55 as opossed to $150, but once you get to 2/3 the cost why not just get the good quality name. I would also be interested to see the comparision between 2 shots of say car windows, where the glare from the sun would be more easily defined.

Dao · Jun 10, 2011

I found this comparison.

Polarizing filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com

Based on the result, (Polarizing filters test - Results and summary - Lenstip.com), it seems that the Marumi CPLs are not bad. Especially for the price.

gsgary · Jun 10, 2011

If i had that lens i would ditch it, those look awful

ulrichsd · Jun 10, 2011

behanana said:
OK my question for to OP is if you are going to spend $100 on the super, why not drop the extra $50 or so on a B+H or quality name one? I'm not trying to an ass about this or anything, but I get the reason behind droping $55 as opossed to $150, but once you get to 2/3 the cost why not just get the good quality name. I would also be interested to see the comparision between 2 shots of say car windows, where the glare from the sun would be more easily defined.

No makes sense, my photography budget is under investigation by my wife

so I couldn't get $150 to fly but I saw the Lenstip test Dao suggested and seemed like the Marumi might be a good budget option.

ulrichsd · Jun 10, 2011

gsgary said:
If i had that lens i would ditch it, those look awful

In terms of awfulness, are you referring to sharpness, fringing, or what? #1 is overexposed and both are resized to very low resolution, so part of the awfulness is on me, but I was using it for quick tests on the filter. Indoors it looks better (no CA).

I don't use any software since I'm trying to get better pictures in camera and not in pp. I do have a copy of PS Elements though and I've read that CA is fairly easy to fix in pp.

gsgary · Jun 10, 2011

CA, just checked the settings unbelievable :lol:

ulrichsd · Jun 10, 2011

gsgary said:
CA, just checked the settings unbelievable

OK, I admit I deserve to be laughed at!! But in my defense I grabbed the camera and was taking some quick shots while watching my 4 week old baby at the park, so I was a bit distracted. The settings were still set on what I was using the night before to take baby photos... :lol:

ISO = 1600
aperture = f/4
shutter speed = 1/3200

Sorry if its a dumb question, but will the wide aperture and high ISO make the CA worse?

Here's the corner shots to compare the CA... but its not really fair to judge the sharpness of the filter added with the limited depth of field. For what its worth, at least the settings are the same with and without.