Slim 77mm Polarizing filters

[DaveG]

I'm going to buy a 77mm Circular Polarizing filter soon. I'd like to get the "slim" type so that it won't vigette with my 16-35 f2.8L when I use it on my 5D. My plan is to get some step down rings in order to use the same P filter with other - and non 77mm filter size - lenses.

The thing is that when I use the 77mm filter on something like my 50 f1.4, then the lens hood will not fit over the filter. I do have a Lee bellows shade but that requires a filter thread in the front of the filter.

So my questions are:

Does anyone know of a good quality (Nikon, Canon B&W, etc.) 77mm slim circular Polarizing filter with front threads?

Having said that does anyone have experience with a regular (i.e. not slim) 77mm filter on the 16-35 on full frame, or say on the 10-22 in 1.6? It occurs to me that the the regular threaded P filter might be the solution but ony if vignetteing isn't a problem.

[Thordic]

I had a slim B&W, and it did NOT have front threads.

[DavidW]

There's a picture of my B+W 77mm slim Kasemann circular polariser MRC on my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1641309) - no front threads, as has been said.

The problem is that if you do get a slim polariser with front threads (which I believe applies to the Heliopan SH-PMC, also there's a Hoya option), the front threads aren't that deep, and I wonder whether there's sufficient thread depth to support the hood without damage or, worse, it tearing the threads out of the polariser mount.


You may be better served buying a smaller circular polariser for your 50mm so that you can use the Canon hood. It doesn't have to be a slim model, which can save money.

If you have a full Lee setup, you could always use the 105mm screw-in circular polariser (either Lee or the Heliopan equivalent; B+W don't make a 105mm MRC circular polariser) on the front of your holder with your Lee hood, but buying the 105mm polariser just for this use is a very expensive and cumbersome way round. The 105mm polariser setup may make sense if you're going to use ND grads in the holder.



David

[DaveG]

There's a picture of my B+W 77mm slim Kasemann circular polariser MRC on my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1641309) - no front threads, as has been said.

The problem is that if you do get a slim polariser with front threads (which I believe applies to the Heliopan SH-PMC, also there's a Hoya option), the front threads aren't that deep, and I wonder whether there's sufficient thread depth to support the hood without damage or, worse, it tearing the threads out of the polariser mount.


You may be better served buying a smaller circular polariser for your 50mm so that you can use the Canon hood. It doesn't have to be a slim model, which can save money.

If you have a full Lee setup, you could always use the 105mm screw-in circular polariser (either Lee or the Heliopan equivalent; B+W don't make a 105mm MRC circular polariser) on the front of your holder with your Lee hood, but buying the 105mm polariser just for this use is a very expensive and cumbersome way round. The 105mm polariser setup may make sense if you're going to use ND grads in the holder.



David

I'm thinking that using smaller P filters for smaller lenses, as you suggest, might be the answer. I do have a 72 and 52mm P filter but they are almost certainly linear Polarizing filters, not circular. My understanding is that the camera's AF won't work with a linear Polarizer and while that might be true I can always focus manually.

I was surprised to discover that the step-up rings - which I just assumed were available - aren't in some of the "X" to 77mm sizes that I'd need. At least they aren't on the B&H site which is pretty much the same thing. ("If a tree falls in the forest but it's not on the B&H site, is there really a tree?")

If I understand what you were saying about the 105mm filter, there would be quite a distance beween the front of the lens and its mount position. I'd be pretty sure that any dust and grebes that were on the filter could show up as noticible blurs in the shot if I used a small aperture. Although off point that's a reason that I don't use a UV filter on my older 100mm f2.8 (non USM) macro lens, as its front element never gets closer than an inch or so to where the filter would be.

By the way do you think that you could have gotten away without a slim P filter on your 16-35? And if not, does the slim version vignette at all?

[DavidW]

At the moment, a full frame body is only a dream for me, but I figure I may get there at some point, so I thought I'd buy a slim polariser for the 16-35. I don't leave the polariser on a lens that much anyway (and if I do, there's always the push-on lens cap that B+W supply).


I think your reasoning on the large 105mm polariser on the front of a Lee filters setup may be backwards; the problems of dust and the like coming into focus are worst the closer you are to the focal plane, not the further away. That's why any dust on the sensor filter tends to show in your images (particularly when well stopped down, because of the more collimated light), and rear element dust usually shows as well, but you can have a reasonable amount of dust on the front element and it's not going to show.

The Lee 105mm polariser can be seen here (http://www.leefilters.com/downloads/CameraBrochureComplete.pdf) on page 24 of the document, at the right. The ring you see on top of the holder is bought and mounted on the front of your Lee holder in place of the ordinary pieces used for the end of the holder stack, then you can screw in a 105mm diameter circular polariser. I believe Heliopan are now selling a 105mm SH-PMC (multicoated) circular polariser, which you may prefer to the Lee option.

However, I'd only do this if you wanted to use ND grads or other filters in the Lee holder; for routine use, I'd just buy a 77mm slim circular polariser for your 16-35, and the appropriate circular polariser for your 50mm prime. Those 105mm polarisers are extremely expensive - B&H want US$300 for the Lee branded one, and Adorama want US$290 for a Heliopan one (which isn't SH-PMC multicoated; I believe an SH-PMC variant is coming).

EDIT: If you read German, there's a slim 105mm SH-PMC multicoated circular polariser on the top of page 9 of the Heliopan price list - whether it's available to buy anywhere, I don't know.



David

[DaveG]

At the moment, a full frame body is only a dream for me, but I figure I may get there at some point, so I thought I'd buy a slim polariser for the 16-35. I don't leave the polariser on a lens that much anyway (and if I do, there's always the push-on lens cap that B+W supply).


I think your reasoning on the large 105mm polariser on the front of a Lee filters setup may be backwards; the problems of dust and the like coming into focus are worst the closer you are to the focal plane, not the further away. That's why any dust on the sensor filter tends to show in your images (particularly when well stopped down, because of the more collimated light), and rear element dust usually shows as well, but you can have a reasonable amount of dust on the front element and it's not going to show.

The Lee 105mm polariser can be seen here (http://www.leefilters.com/downloads/CameraBrochureComplete.pdf) on page 24 of the document, at the right. The ring you see on top of the holder is bought and mounted on the front of your Lee holder in place of the ordinary pieces used for the end of the holder stack, then you can screw in a 105mm diameter circular polariser. I believe Heliopan are now selling a 105mm SH-PMC (multicoated) circular polariser, which you may prefer to the Lee option.

However, I'd only do this if you wanted to use ND grads or other filters in the Lee holder; for routine use, I'd just buy a 77mm slim circular polariser for your 16-35, and the appropriate circular polariser for your 50mm prime. Those 105mm polarisers are extremely expensive - B&H want US$300 for the Lee branded one, and Adorama want US$290 for a Heliopan one (which isn't SH-PMC multicoated; I believe an SH-PMC variant is coming).



David


I disagree about the dust on the filter problem. You can see this for yourself while you are driving your car. If your driving position is close to the windshield you see "though" the dust and crap, and it's not really noticable. If you sit farther back the dust/windshield is closer to your eye's focus point and within or at least close too its depth of field, and can be really distracting. This is why dust/grunge on eye glasses goes unnoticed when you are outside and are looking at things some distance away. But when you look at something closer you notice the crud.

Dirt on the sensor is different. It's acually keeping light from hitting the sensor's pixel at the dust position. There is also no depth of field aspect to the dirt on the sensor. If I have a dirty filter and shoot at f32 it might become noticable. If I shoot at f2.8 is may not be. Dirt on your windshield at night - with your eyes dilated and wide open - is not as noticable as it would be during the day with you eyes "stopped down." Dirt on the sensor is going to be unaffected by aperture since a blocked pixel is a blocked pixel. Dirt on the filter still allows light to go around it. It may be blurry and it will decrease contrast but the pixel still sees light.

I'm gong to have a look at the Lee set up. I suspect that I'll just declare victory and will buy the Nikkor slim filter. And thanks for the info.

[DavidW]

I disagree about the dust on the filter problem. You can see this for yourself while you are driving your car. If your driving position is close to the windshield you see "though" the dust and crap, and it's not really noticable. If you sit farther back the dust/windshield is closer to your eye's focus point and within or at least close too its depth of field, and can be really distracting. This is why dust/grunge on eye glasses goes unnoticed when you are outside and are looking at things some distance away. But when you look at something closer you notice the crud.

Dirt on the sensor is different. It's acually keeping light from hitting the sensor's pixel at the dust position. There is also no depth of field aspect to the dirt on the sensor. If I have a dirty filter and shoot at f32 it might become noticable. If I shoot at f2.8 is may not be. Dirt on your windshield at night - with your eyes dilated and wide open - is not as noticable as it would be during the day with you eyes "stopped down." Dirt on the sensor is going to be unaffected by aperture since a blocked pixel is a blocked pixel. Dirt on the filter still allows light to go around it. It may be blurry and it will decrease contrast but the pixel still sees light.
Ah - I'm with you now. We're talking about two separate effects.

I was talking about the problem of dust being near the focal plane behind the lens. You were talking about dust coming into the usable depth of field in front of the lens. Both effects matter.

I suspect the relatively modest depth of a Lee filter holder with a polariser on the front isn't going to matter too much, but I hear what you're saying - at narrow apertures on wide angle lenses, depth of field is awfully deep!

I'm gong to have a look at the Lee set up. I suspect that I'll just declare victory and will buy the Nikkor slim filter. And thanks for the info.
It's beginning to sound like buying a slim 77mm filter and another polariser is the best option. As you say, the more 'extreme' step up rings (such as 58mm to 77mm) aren't widely available, if you can find them at all, and using two rings is increasing depth and possibly risking vignetting.



David