B&H "General Brand" polarizer $39 B&W $91

[mcneguy]

What's the difference?

[Scottes]

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS - $1650
Kodak 80-210mm - $60?

Pretty much says it all.


edit:
OK if you edit I'll edit.

There's a hell of a difference. Multi-coated filters like the good ones (B&W, Hoya as long as they say "MRC" or something) will have several different types of coatings since one coating may cause an effect that another coatings blocks. For instance an anti-reflective coating may cause a purple cast on highlights. So they add a coating that color-corrects the purple cast in order to remove/lessen this chromatic aberration.

The better ones will truly be neutral - they will not cause a color shift. Some cheaper ones are "almost neutral"

Better ones may be flatter, thus not causing edge distortions.

Better ones may just be better built - if you check out cheaper CPLs you may find that they don't turn as easily. Or that they turn too easily and thus they could slip and spin on their own.

All in all, you generally get what you pay for. But there's lots of good reasons to get good filters - same as with lenses.

[Tapeman]

B+W filters block a higher percentage of reflections.

I have been told ( by knowledgeable people) that Nikon makes the best polarizers you can get followed by B+W.

If you think the B+Ws are expensive check the Nikons.

Spend the extra $ if you can. You will keep a good polarizer forever unless you damage it or get lenses it will not fit.

[Vegas Poboy]

I love B+W filters, Looking for every edge I can get & on my 70-200 Cano I have both the UV & CPL and never had a problem. Most of the Pro's that I learn from say's good filters is a must.

[mcneguy]

Well, it turns out that my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI and my Canon 70-200 f4L take the same size filter so I can cost justify the more expensive filter. My further question is, I will be spending most of my shooting time sitting in a Major League ball park this summer. I assume that I will only need the polarizer for day games (Sundays) and when the sun actually shines (here in Milwaukee, not so much) am I correct about that and can I afford the exposure loss when shooting sports?

Thanks

[Scottes]

You lose 2 stops. That's quite a bit. That's 1/500th shutter dropping to 1/125th.

I wonder about the necessity of needing a polarizer for shooting baseball. But then again I wouldn't shoot baseball so I just don't know if it has benefits, I just think that the 2-stop cost would be greater than the benefit of losing the glare.