Do you Polarize your 17-40 L ?

[slejhamer]

Just curious, for the 17-40mm L lens owners, do you use a polarizer?

If so, do you take the lens hood off?

And if you use a polarizer, do you put the filter on top of your UV or in place of?

Oh, and if you don't use a polarizer, why not (other than the wide-angle coverage problem with those filters)?

Quality 77mm filters are darned pricey, so I'm thinking about just getting a good UV unless someone convinces me that a polarizer is a "must own" with this lens. Thanks.

P.S. Sample shots from this lens with polarizer would be much appreciated!

[CyberDyneSystems]

...sometimes...

When I do.. the hood is off and it's usually over the UV 'cause I'm to lazy to take it off.

A polarizer is never a "must" with a specific lens.. it is a "Must" under certain conditions...

In this image here is how it helped,
http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y2l9vy&outx=650&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&no stamp=1

(CLICK IMAGE)

1. It cut diown the glare reflecting off of the water which left more detail in the reflection..

2. It helped give the sky those rich blues.

[Scottes]

I use a polarizer quite often. Almost whenever I can - that is, when I don't need shutter speed. I use it on the 17-40, 70-200, and 100-400 if I can.

The one I have - a Hoya Super CIR-PL - can be rotated easily with the 17-40 hood attached. I just have to be careful not to hit the cir-pol surface with my fingertip.

[CyberDyneSystems]

.. that's right.. Scottes has jogged my memory..

With the "Pie Plate" that Canon calls a hood for the 17-40mm.. there is plenty of room to reach in with a finger and twek the polarizer with the "Pie Plate" attached... :P

Methinks this is the only lens I own where this is "doable"

[slejhamer]

Hey thanks guys; that's helpful.

Another q: what about gel filters in the rear filter slot? Anything worth considering? I was thinking that it would be a good spot to put a ND filter ... but it doesn't sound too convenient if you have to take the lens off every time you want to make a change. What do you think?

[Scottes]

Anything gel filters can do can be done in photoshop with more control. ND is handy - sometimes it can be done through creative use of ISO and aperture. ND-Grad and Cir-Pol can't be done in PS.

I haven't used any, though. About the only one I'd consider is a set of ND-Grad, and these you really need on the front.

[defordphoto]

...sometimes...

When I do.. the hood is off and it's usually over the UV 'cause I'm to lazy to take it off.

A polarizer is never a "must" with a specific lens.. it is a "Must" under certain conditions...

In this image here is how it helped,
http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y2l9vy&outx=650&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&no stamp=1

(CLICK IMAGE)

1. It cut diown the glare reflecting off of the water which left more detail in the reflection..

2. It helped give the sky those rich blues.

The problem when using a polarizer with the lens wide open is you get dark spots in the sky. The sky in this shot is uneven with a dark splotch in the center. It also shows in the water.

[psk4363]

The short answer for me is - "sometimes", but when I do it's always with the hood left on and the skylight filter taken off.

When don't I? When you have a large expanse of blue sky in the image due to the unnatural central darkening.
When do I? If I want to really saturate the colours, say a woodland scene immediately after rainfall.

As they are always useful to have in your bag, and the 77mm size will fit your other 'L' lenses, why not get one and experiment?

Cheers,
Barry

[slejhamer]

ND is handy - sometimes it can be done through creative use of ISO and aperture. ND-Grad and Cir-Pol can't be done in PS. I haven't used any, though. About the only one I'd consider is a set of ND-Grad, and these you really need on the front.

ND I'd want for slow-shutter water shots; in many situations I can only get as slow as 1/4s even fully stopped down with a polarizer. But I can definitely see the need for a grad ND too. Sounds like a front-mount is more convenient ... I might try a cokin or a "CDS mount" with gaffers tape! :lol:

[slejhamer]

The problem when using a polarizer with the lens wide open is you get dark spots in the sky. The sky in this shot is uneven with a dark splotch in the center. It also shows in the water.

I suppose there's no way around that, other than zooming in?

[slejhamer]

When do I? If I want to really saturate the colours, say a woodland scene immediately after rainfall.


Good situation! I imagine it would cut glare off the wet leaves too. Now I just need a nice woodland setting...

why not get one and experiment?


Oh, I'm sure I will eventually! I'm in the processing of upgrading lenses and have a "spousal constraint" on what I can spend ... but I'll add one to my wishlist at B&H. 8)

[robekert]

but I'll add one to my wishlist at B&H. 8)

Aren't those "wishlists" great. I have one on B&H and Adorama. If I read about an item that sounds interesting, I put it on the wishlist and sit on the decision until I get more info, or my mood changes.....then I buy it or remove it. My 2 cents.

Rob

[CyberDyneSystems]

The problem when using a polarizer with the lens wide open is you get dark spots in the sky. The sky in this shot is uneven with a dark splotch in the center. It also shows in the water.

I suppose there's no way around that, other than zooming in?

heh.. I liked the color shift in the sky and it was the look I was going for..
Oh well to each his own...

"wide open" refers to aperture.. not zoom..BTW.
So by stopping down the aperture one could effect the degree that the sky darkens in the center.

[slejhamer]

"wide open" refers to aperture.. not zoom..BTW.
So by stopping down the aperture one could effect the degree that the sky darkens in the center.

My interpretation, in the context presented here, is that it refers to angle of view. And I'd be willing to bet your aperture was not "wide open" for that shot. :P

[roanjohn]

Nope.......but I'm planning too.........once I save enough cash.

.........those polarizers are EXPENSIVE!!! dang!!

Ro1

[billhercus]

Am I right in thinking that one of the advantages of the polarizer is that the dynamic range is reduced (like ND filter)?

It seems so to my simple mind but maybe something else is coming into play.....

[Scottes]

The big advantage - the one it was designed for - is glare reduction. It only lets through the light beams that are traveling in a particular direction.

http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/polarized/light.html

So light that is bounced towards us from the side will not come through the polarizer. This reduces glare., which let us "see through" reflection in a windshield or the surface of water. It also will depeen the color and contrast of a variety of surfaces that are prone to glare, like leaves and grass and such. It also will strengthen the contrast in clouds since it reduces extraneous light bouncing around.

[johneo]

I went out a few weeks back and bought a second 77mm polarizer because I got tired of taking it off the 17-40 and putting it on the 100-400 and back and forth as needed.

I had done this with a couple of my old cameras a few years back and as you juggle the camera and a filter while trying to change them it really sucks when it pops out of your hand and smashes on the ground. In the long run, putting it on 2 lenses and not swapping CAN be cheaper. :wink:

As for putting it over the UV filter ... I wouldn't. Not sure how much it would degrade the photo but two extra layers of glass wouldn't help, I'd think. So why keep any filter on (usually a 1A) ... because it is cheaper than replacing or repairing a lens.

[defordphoto]

The problem when using a polarizer with the lens wide open is you get dark spots in the sky. The sky in this shot is uneven with a dark splotch in the center. It also shows in the water.

I suppose there's no way around that, other than zooming in?

Nope.

[Tom W]

I'm not all that sure that a polarizer is necessary under most circumstances:

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y3h87n&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[mjordan]

Since a polorizer works best when the sun is coming from about 90 degrees to the side and very little when it is directly in front or behind, does it do any good if you are taking a picture of a sunset when the sun is below the horizon in front of you... other than reduce the amount of light by 2 stops?

I'm asking because someone else uses one on all of his evening shots for color saturation. I've not tried mine in a situation like this but I don't think it will provide that much benifit. Am I wrong in that thinking?

Mike