View Full Version : what polarizer?
malla1962
15th of June 2005 (Wed), 15:46
hi,im thinking of geting a hoya pro1 polarizer.are these ok?any bad reports on this polarizer.
malcolm
csnudelman
15th of June 2005 (Wed), 16:21
Heliopan and B+W filters use a brass ring. Hoya and almost all other brands use aluminum which can be a real pain (seizing), especially with a rotating element as the polarizer. ;)
ssim
15th of June 2005 (Wed), 16:51
I've got a couple of Hoya CP's and have had no trouble with them at all. There quality is top notch in my opinion.
Eric DeCastro
15th of June 2005 (Wed), 16:52
as long as they are mulitcoated. the non are ok but you will mostly just lose a stop of light. rather pay more and get the right one.
Dchemist
15th of June 2005 (Wed), 19:14
I would not get the "thin" ones as they have no inner threads on the to hold the lens cap. You have to use a rubber cap that is a friction fit and I found it a pain it falls off easily.
Bob_A
15th of June 2005 (Wed), 19:19
I would not get the "thin" ones as they have no inner threads on the to hold the lens cap. You have to use a rubber cap that is a friction fit and I found it a pain it falls off easily.
Never thought of that! I keep thinking the use of the threads is only for stacking filters and forget about the lens cap.
By the way, I have a 77mm B+W Circular-Pol MRC that I use on my 24-70 and have been really happy with it.
lancea
16th of June 2005 (Thu), 01:58
The selling point of the Hoya Pro 1 is that they are thin AND they do have front threads. The threads are what costs the extra :) I've got a couple, and they seem fine to me (but yes, they were expensive even through eBay).
malla1962
16th of June 2005 (Thu), 11:34
thanks all for your advice.hoya pro1 now orderd.
malcolm
Screamer
16th of June 2005 (Thu), 21:32
I use B+W and have had great luck with them.
One comment on the thin versions...remember if you are using this on a wide angle lens and buying the "thin" version under the impression that you need it for W/A...A body with a 1.6x crop actually eliminates the need for the "thin" version...you would be paying for something you don't need. Just a friendly public service reminder of something that could be overlooked. :)
wilflee
17th of June 2005 (Fri), 07:55
Great suggestion, Screamer.
In fact, because of the 1.6x crop, I use 72mm filters with an adapter ring on lenses with 77mm filter thread without any vignetting problems.
If you've priced filters lately, 72mm filters represent a big savings over 77mm. The 2.5mm bigger glass doesn't cost THAT much more to manufacture. The price difference is mainly due to demand.
Filters are one of the highest margin items a store sells.
csnudelman
17th of June 2005 (Fri), 09:41
I don't use filters as a general rule. Under some conditions I do put on a UV filter to protect the front element, but this is rare. I also use, on occation, a polarizer. I have them in both 72mm (for my 135L) and 77mm (for my 24-70L). Who knows? Perhaps someday I will upgrade my 20D to a full size or 1.3X factor format.
foxbat
17th of June 2005 (Fri), 11:01
Another thumbs up for the hoya pro1 polarizer from me. I have them in 58mm and 67mm sizes. Both are thin and both have outer threads.
jimchapin468
17th of June 2005 (Fri), 11:17
I was just wondering if the "quantarary" lens UV filter cause my Canon 24-70 L Lenses not to be sharp? Is this a cheap brand? Will Canon work on the lens to fix the problem if it is under warranty? Thanks Jimmy
SkipD
17th of June 2005 (Fri), 11:22
Quantaray is a "brand" that Ritz Photo puts on all items they "private label". Much of the stuff bearing the Quantaray name is, in my opinion, junk. There's no way to tell exactly what you have for the filter, but I would suspect it doesn't compare well to the good brand name multicoated filters.
Any filter, even the best, can cause degradation of the image under certain lighting conditions. The degradation is typically seen as flare and/or loss of contrast due to a fairly strong light source that can impinge on the filter surfaces when the exposure is being made.
Andy_T
17th of June 2005 (Fri), 11:26
Well, there's an easy way to find out ... take the same shot with and without the filter and see if you can discern any differences.
But it sure sounds like a viable explanation.
Best regards,
Andy
Rob612
17th of June 2005 (Fri), 11:27
I will try ro remove the filter and see what the results are before anything else. Did you made any test of this type ?
jimchapin468
17th of June 2005 (Fri), 11:30
What is considered a Good UV Filter? Thanks for all the help Jimmy
CyberDyneSystems
17th of June 2005 (Fri), 12:58
B&W, Hoya, and I get the very affordable Canon branded ones.
Your Quantaray will make a nice coaster..
vjack
21st of August 2005 (Sun), 13:07
One comment on the thin versions...remember if you are using this on a wide angle lens and buying the "thin" version under the impression that you need it for W/A...A body with a 1.6x crop actually eliminates the need for the "thin" version...you would be paying for something you don't need. Just a friendly public service reminder of something that could be overlooked. :)
Is this true even of the 10-22mm?
SkipD
21st of August 2005 (Sun), 13:12
Is this true even of the 10-22mm?My best guess is that the statement is NOT TRUE for all of the EF-S lenses. They were designed to cover the APS-C sensor and not much more. Thus, you don't have the extra room around what becomes the image. It's lenses designed for the 35mm film frame being used on APS-C sensor bodies that have the wiggle room.
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.