Polarizer suggestions

[Steph]

I'm surprised that linears are still available. As far as I'm aware there isn't a single camera available that can focus and meter properly with a linear.

Amazingly, some people still use manual focus cameras with simple (or even handheld) meters and with those, a linear polariser works better than a circular one.

 

[Socrates]

Amazingly, some people still use manual focus cameras with simple (or even handheld) meters and with those, a linear polariser works better than a circular one.

Yeah but is there much of a market there?

 

[Helen B]

Apart from cost, one or two special applications such as making a variable density polarizer, and a small decrease in thickness I'm not sure what the advantage of a linear polarizer is in normal photography. There does appear to be a much better selection of circular polarizers than linear polarizers available nowadays.

Best,
Helen

 

[Photog38]

Right now I have the ef-s 17-85mm. I know it's probably not the best lens and a $300 filter may be overkill. But if someday I get the 17-40mm L or 24-105mm L (better lenses than I have now) I don't want to have to buy another polarizer. Would it be worth it to buy a better filter than I need right now so that I'm prepared for the future? What if I bought this polarizer http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10889-REG/B_W_66045620_77_mm_Kaeseman_Circular.html and step-up rings for my 67mm lens? Would that filter be good enough to use on an “L” lens or should I expect to spend a lot more? Or should I go with a 67mm filter that is on the cheap side for now and upgrade later when I have a better lens?:er:

 

[table1349]

Right now I have the ef-s 17-85mm. I know it's probably not the best lens and a $300 filter may be overkill. But if someday I get the 17-40mm L or 24-105mm L (better lenses than I have now) I don't want to have to buy another polarizer. Would it be worth it to buy a better filter than I need right now so that I'm prepared for the future? What if I bought this polarizer http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10889-REG/B_W_66045620_77_mm_Kaeseman_Circular.html and step-up rings for my 67mm lens? Would that filter be good enough to use on an “L” lens or should I expect to spend a lot more? Or should I go with a 67mm filter that is on the cheap side for now and upgrade later when I have a better lens?:er:

I can't tell you what is best for you, but when I bought mine it was with the idea that I have 4 zooms and a hand full of primes. I couldn't afford to by a top quality polarizer for each lens, but spread over 10 lenses the cost was about $35.00 a lens including the cost of the step up rings. That was do-able in my book. Plus I will never replace it. The only lens that I can not use it for is the 400 f2.8 and that has drop-in filters anyway.

 

[Tiberius47]

Right now I have the ef-s 17-85mm. I know it's probably not the best lens and a $300 filter may be overkill. But if someday I get the 17-40mm L or 24-105mm L (better lenses than I have now) I don't want to have to buy another polarizer. Would it be worth it to buy a better filter than I need right now so that I'm prepared for the future? What if I bought this polarizer http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10889-REG/B_W_66045620_77_mm_Kaeseman_Circular.html and step-up rings for my 67mm lens? Would that filter be good enough to use on an “L” lens or should I expect to spend a lot more? Or should I go with a 67mm filter that is on the cheap side for now and upgrade later when I have a better lens?:er:

it depends. if you know for a fact that when you upgrade your lens it will still fit, then it might be worth it. However, if your upgrade lens takes a different size then youwould have spent $300 on a filter for an average lens.