Polarizer

[Ralph III]

Hello,
Can anyone recommend a good or affordable polarizer for the 28-135 IS USM lens -or- should I choose another route? I shoot a Canon 30d.

1) The sky is just whitewashed during midday and I would still like a little more color depth as sun rises or falls.
2) The same issue with outdoor portraiture or outdoor event photography. I could use a little more color saturation with some tennis tournaments shot. The surroundings could be richer as could skin tones.
3) Do you sacrifice anything using a polarizer and/or have to make additional camera adjustments?
4) Can a polarizer be left on all the time, as a uv filter, in protecting the glass? Or does it have adverse effects in certain situations?

The whitewash issues can be corrected in DPP but it adds a lot to the workload. I would rather my camera record the better image. BTW, this is only a tweaking issue and not a major color discrepancy, with exception of getting deep blue sky's.

Thanks, Ralph

[FlyingPhotog]

A CPL will not help with blown out skies...

You need Graduated ND to hold back the light in only a portion of the frame in that instance.

A CPL will generally cost you one full stop of light so you must adjust accordingly.

Leaving it full time is fine provided your angle to the sun will not change. As you turn or the sun moves, the effect of the filter will change. Situations where you are doing a wide sweep of panning (airshows, etc...) are not good for Polarizers as you will get wildly different skies accross a series of frames.

Given the proper orientation to the sun or to reflected light, you can get richer colors becuase you are cutting some reflected glare.

[Ralph III]

Thanks for the reply.

In researching the problem I may have discovered my own answer but would appreciate some input. I would prefer not to use an adjustable polarizer either way.

I appear to have some slight out of focus issues also, which really shows when enlarging photos. Could my cheaper Hoya uv filter be the cause of both? I realize this is not an L lens but edges should be sharper than they are.

I read inexpensive filters can cause blur issues and are not as effective with light glare. Would investing in a quality uv filter such as B + W MRC truly help correct the color (whitewash) and slight blur issues? If there is that much difference between filters, I will go with the quality uv filter versus a polarizer.

Can you recommend other quality uv filters for under $50.00?


Ralph

[Jon]

A better quality UV will help if the filter's causing problems. There's an easy test for that though. Go out, take a shot normally, then remove the filter you currently have and take the same shot and compare the two. A good multi-coated filter will also be less likely to give you lens flare than will a cheap one. I use B+W MRC UV filters on my lenses.

But a UV won't do a lot for blown out sky. What you'll need to do to deal with that is use Exposure Compensation to make the whole picture darker, use a graduated ND filter to darken just the sky, or use a polarizer (in some conditions) to cut down on the glare off non-metallic surfaces (including dust and moisture in the air; that's why a polarizer can darken skies under the right conditions).

[DANATTHEROCK]

I appear to have some slight out of focus issues also, which really shows when enlarging photos. Could my cheaper Hoya uv filter be the cause of both? I realize this is not an L lens but edges should be sharper than they are.




I had this lens when I first got my 40D. Mine was sharp in the f/8 to f/11 area as I recall. Not so sharp wide open. Give that some serious consideration. As for UV filters, use high quality ones like the Hoya Pro1 or HD models. For circular polarizers, same, get high quality ones. I have the Hoya Pro1D and a brand new Hoya HD. Both are top shelf. You can find good prices on the Hoya UV and polarizers I mentioned on the site www.2filter.com (http://www.2filter.com) Much cheaper than B&H and many other retailers. Also, be sure you are using a good quality tripod. This is of the greatest importance for sharp images. I would suggest the $40 Canon remote release as well if you shoot landscape. If not, atleast use the 2 second timer. A polarizer will help with the bright skies a bit, but you need a graduated ND filter to do this most effectively. I have the Singh Ray Galen Rowell graduated 3 stop soft and it works wonders for my landscapes. Check out the Singh Ray site for info on what it does and how to best use it. Many times a polarizer and the grad ND are used together. For this reason (and others like using a lens cap) be sure to get a high quality polarizer that has front threads. If using on wide angle lenses, be sure to get a "thin" polarizer as well. The Hoya Pro1 and HD are this type of course. Higher end B&W and Heliopan are likely of similar design. Something to be aware of for sure when buying a polarizer. All of these are variables that could give you soft images if not considered. Think of it as a package deal:)

[DANATTHEROCK]

I read inexpensive filters can cause blur issues and are not as effective with light glare. Would investing in a quality uv filter such as B + W MRC truly help correct the color (whitewash) and slight blur issues? If there is that much difference between filters, I will go with the quality uv filter versus a polarizer.

Can you recommend other quality uv filters for under $50.00?


Ralph

The UV protects the lens. Getting a high quality one reduces the chance of it reducing the IQ of the lens. For $60 you can get the Hoya Pro1 UV at www.2filter.com (http://www.2filter.com) This is the price for the 77 mm that I have. Top notch UV filter and is a good way to protect the lens. The newer Hoya HD UV is perhaps better, not sure. I have both and they are very high quality. The polarizer is an essential item, get a good one. It makes colors more saturated, makes the sky more blue, etc... A MUST have for landscapes. The graduated ND is what will help prevent "whitewash" as it darkens the sky, yet allows the foreground to remain bright.

[DANATTHEROCK]

Ralph, a sidenote, if you plan to upgrade your lens (as we all do), think about filter size. If you get some of the better Canon lenses later, likely many will be 77mm, your filters for the 28-135 won't fit. Consider getting the step up ring to allow using a 77 mm filter/filters on your 28-135, then later you will have the 77 mm filter sizes needed for the better lenses. If you get the smaller filters now, they will be worthless later if you upgrade your lenses. Food for thought.

See here...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/307051-REG/Cokin_CR7277_72_77mm_Step_Up_Ring_Lens.html

[Jon]

If you get a step-up ring, you won't be able to use a hood. And you want to use a hood whenever you shoot, since it helps keep stray non-imaging light from hitting the lens and causing flare. You're much better buying the appropriate size filter for what you have now and getting another size later when you get something that needs it.

[DANATTHEROCK]

If you spend $150-200 on a circular polarizer for the 72 mm lens now, you will be SOL in the coming months if you get a 10-22, 24-105, 24-70, etc.. that require 77 mm filters :)

[Jon]

If you're spending $150-$200 for a 72 mm polarizer, you're overpaying. And if you've had a shot ruined by lens flare a hood could have prevented, you'll be regretting that "saving" which prevented your using the hood. Likewise for the shots you miss while moving your polarizer from lens to lens whenever you change lenses on the camera. To say nothing of the uneven polarization across the sky when you're using a UWA which makes the combination not especially attractive. And what if the lens you were planning to buy gets replaced by one that takes a different filter size (16-35 L took 77 mm; the 16-35 II L takes 82 mm)? Been there, done that. I have separate polarizers for each lens, even when that means I have 3x77 mm polarizers in my bag along with a couple of 52 & 58 mm ones.

[DANATTHEROCK]

Good points Jon. Guess it depends on your gear. I had the same lens the OP has, upgraded it shortly after, used the step up ring, bought high qualty 77 mm filters, and now my main lenses all happen to be 77mm. So for me, it is pretty clear what is best. But it does of course depend on what route the OP goes with lenses in the future as to the efficacy of this suggestion. As for uneven polarization on ultrawides, if using a thin mount CPL (like the Hoya Pro1D and HD), I have no problems on the 10-22 as long as I avoid the 10-14 mm range. And the price I mentioned up top was for 77 mm, I wasn't very clear.

[Ralph III]

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions!

This is something I will have to research a little further in order to consider all advice. I am actually a little more confused in regards to using a uv filter and will explain below. I will definetly look into the polarizer filters for sky's and landscape shots though.

I see hightly respected professionals debate even whether to use a uv filter? I read an article late last night by a famous photographer/site who recommends not using one at all. With exception of incliment weather or beach shots. One point made was that glass today is highly scratch resistant. It was noted rarely will you see a used lens sold with scratch issues today. This article was noted by a forum member from an earlier debate on this subject. Sorry I cannot recall the name but was such a Fred Miranda or LumiQuest experts. It is a personal preference as noted in the article. His argument was against uv filters.

I have no problem taking the filter off in different situations, especially since I use a hood. So this would be acceptable for me.

Do you have any input in this regards for me to consider as your opinion also matters greatly. Ralph


P.S. My next lens will be the 70-200mm L IS next year some time. Then I want to get the 24-70mm L at some point. For now this lens serves me well but I may consider replacing with the new 18-135 if equal in quality?

[Jon]

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions!

This is something I will have to research a little further in order to consider all advice. I am actually a little more confused in regards to using a uv filter and will explain below. I will definetly look into the polarizer filters for sky's and landscape shots though.

I see hightly respected professionals debate even whether to use a uv filter? I read an article late last night by a famous photographer/site who recommends not using one at all. With exception of incliment weather or beach shots. One point made was that glass today is highly scratch resistant. It was noted rarely will you see a used lens sold with scratch issues today. This article was noted by a forum member from an earlier debate on this subject. Sorry I cannot recall the name but was such a Fred Miranda or LumiQuest experts. It is a personal preference as noted in the article. His argument was against uv filters.

I have no problem taking the filter off in different situations, especially since I use a hood. So this would be acceptable for me.

Do you have any input in this regards for me to consider as your opinion also matters greatly. Ralph


P.S. My next lens will be the 70-200mm L IS next year some time. Then I want to get the 24-70mm L at some point. For now this lens serves me well but I may consider replacing with the new 18-135 if equal in quality?
Read over the Protective Filter FAQ (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=368177) on here? I personally use B+W MRC UVs on all my lenses. You never know when something unexpected is going to come along. I'm often behind prop planes running up, in front of inquisitive dogs, cats, goats, . . ., or plowing through brush which a lens hood will do nothing to stop. And there was a post on here from a wedding photographer about one wedding she was shooting when a medevac helicopter set down right nearby, sending everyone at the wedding (except the bride, a former EMT) diving for cover from the debris stirred up by the downwash of the rotors. No pictures - she was busily protecting her gear.

[DANATTHEROCK]

You will only wish you had a UV filter when you damage a lens. 24-70 and 70-200 IS will set you back about $3,000. Putting $120 worth of protective UV filters on is cheap insurance to my way of thinking. But as I said, you won't regret not buying them until you damage your lens. I tested mine and could not tell any noticable drop in IQ with them on. Read up on the subject and decide for yourself. It is your investment to protect (or not).