Is a polarizer filter a good thing to have?

[Hydro]

My wife and kids indulged my new hobby by getting me a couple of items from the local camera shop for father's day. One of the items they got on the store's recommendation was a 77mm Promaster circular polarizer filter.

My learning curve hasn't gotten to filters yet (other than the UV filter on the lens) but I am thinking of returning it. I like to shot as wide open as I can most of the time, and apparently I would lose up to 2 stops with this filter.

What is the advantage of having this filter? I hesitate to put something in front of the 70-200L that may change the optics. Haven't really noticed any glare or color problems that were not self inflicted.

Any advice appreciated.

RICK

[tim]

Yes, they're one of the few filters that can't be done digitally in Photoshop. They reduce reflections, which is good for glass, cars, metals, etc, and is good for really sunny days too. It also turns the sky a cool deep blue if you turn it correctly. I'd keep it if I were you.

[eosnob]

Circ-pol filter is a useful item to have in your kit. It's used to cut out glare due to polarised light. This might occur in the sky, if you're shooting landscape, or from any reflective surfaces, like metal, glass, or water. You'd generally use it when there is plenty of light to cause the glare, thus losing 2 stops is no big deal. I would only put the filter on if I needed to combat glare, otherwise I just use a lens hood.

[MrChad]

I love mine don't know how I lived without one, I have a 62mm one and a step down ring so I can also use it on my 58mm lens. Get one for your largest lens and buy a step down ring for the rest of them. And get one in your budget.

I have a cheapy Sunpak filter and it works great w/ my 18-125mm DC. I know alot of folks harp you have to have a Super-xtra-multicoated-optimized for knats @$$ digital $150.00-250.00 CP filter.

Well, frankly my moto is, if your budget can only support a $50 no name polarizer then get one, it's clearly better then none at all. And I love my cheapy and it's done wonders for me and I love my prints from it.

If I used one everyday I could justify the ubber models, but it comes out once and a while and does it's job quite well IMO. I had no names for years on my manual gear before I realized companies with names made them :)

[lostdoggy]

I agreed with MrChad, having a less expensive one is way better then not having one at all. Go out and try it out what do you have to loss. Especially with digital, if the shot doesn't comeout as you like it delete it and do it over. I normally just continue to take picture since I carry so many CF with me I could n't be bother to waste time deleting. If anything you might check if it is Multicoated and if possible see if it can be echange for a Hoya, Tiffen, or Sunpack. B+W is little too expensive IMO.

[FlyingPete]

Great filter to have, I like to use mine for nice blue skies, however it pays to not have it in the 'darkest' position with skies, as they tend to look unnatural.

[wilflee]

If you shoot sunlight lit scenes, then a polarizer is a must have. It filters out "out of phase" light waves which are typically reflected light. If your budget does not allow you to get a $$$ B+W multi-coated circular polarizer, consider a non-coated linear polarizer that's smaller than your lens opening. I've had success using a 72mm linear polarizing filter on a 82mm opening lens with a step-down adapter ring.

Another must have filter is a "Haze 2" filter if you shoot pictures over water or distant tree lined mountains. Haze 2 filter is a super duper UV filter that removes the blue haze caused by reflected UV light. It is possible to reduce haze in Photoshop. But it's a lot of work and haze 2 filter is relatively cheap.

[Curtis N]

Just a technical point...
A polarizer won't reduce glare from metallic surfaces, like chrome or polished aluminum. It will reduce glare from painted metal (like vehicles), glass, water and other non-metallic surfaces.

[arpi]

Just a technical point...
A polarizer won't reduce glare from metallic surfaces, like chrome or polished aluminum. It will reduce glare from painted metal (like vehicles), glass, water and other non-metallic surfaces.

hi Curtis,

There is a picture here that shows the comparison of reflection with coins (I don't know if there is a glass in front or not)

http://www.thkphoto.com/products/hoya/pro1d-01.html

Cheers

[arpi]

Upon reading the link I gave above, I have a question. Does anybody know the difference in the filter design and effectiveness of polarizing filters for a digital cameras and non-digital cameras or it is just a marketing claim?

edit: I have found out. the fact that the filter is multicoated is what does it. so their claim that the 'filter is design exclusively for digital cameras' sounds like a marketing trick since any multicoated filter would be as good.

[lostdoggy]

If your budget does not allow you to get a $$$ B+W multi-coated circular polarizer, consider a non-coated linear polarizer that's smaller than your lens opening.


Linear Polarize Filter is not recommended for DSLR. It has to do with focusing Error. I think.

[Curtis N]

There is a picture here that shows the comparison of reflection with coins (I don't know if there is a glass in front or not)http://www.thkphoto.com/products/hoya/pro1d-01.html The web page doesn't explain what filters are used in that image. However, their page describing their circular polarizer uncludes this text: "CIRCULAR PL filters allow you to remove unwanted reflections from non-metallic surfaces such as water, glass etc."

[mrclark321]

I just ordered a filter and am waiting for it to arrive, price was $102 shipped

Dan


http://www.thkphoto.com/products/hoya/pro1d-04.html

[Lucky Forward]

It's definitely a worthwhile filter. I use a polarizer in landscape photography to:

- Deepen the blue of the sky and bring out the detail in clouds

- Remove reflections from the surface of water, which darkens the water and actually lets you see down to the bottom in shallow rivers and streams

- Remove reflected glare on trees and leaves, so that they are a deeper, more saturated green.

Try experimenting with your polarizer in the backyard, point it up at the sky and some trees, and rotate to see the effect you get. It will have its greatest effect on the sky when it is pointed at a 90 degree angle to the sun. And like FlyingPete said, it's easy to overdo the darkening effect on the sky, so it sometimes needs to be used with restraint. With practice you'll learn to "dial in" the amount of polarization you need.

[MrChad]

Linear vs Circ. Pol. Filters
CPF: are needed for all SLR's film or digital with TTL metering systems.

Multi-coated: for reducing glare, good for digital or film.

[jfrancho]

It can also be useful to get a slower shutter in brightly lit scenes where you may want to use a larger aperture in combination with a slower shutter. I sometimes stack one with a nuetral density (ND) filter for this.

[michapma]

After a high-quality UV filter to protect my one (so far) decent lens, it's the only filter I currently am planning on buying. I have a 62mm (I think) B+W circ pol multilayer job that was a dream to use even for a total noob like myself years ago. (I've maintained that status.) I got great results with it and had a lot of fun looking into water and seeing what I could do with different scenes. It's fun exploring with one.

Although I don't currently own any L lenses, I'm considering buying the significantly more expensive 77mm filter size. That way I can be sure to only have to buy one filter for all present and future lenses, and for each lens size a step-down ring. Does that make sense? :(

[wilflee]

Linear Polarize Filter is not recommended for DSLR. It has to do with focusing Error. I think.

From my experience, it works fine with 20D's focusing mechanism. Of course, if the front lens mount rotates (ie. non-internal focusing lens), then you have to adjust the filter after focusing.

Linear polarizers are very cheap these days because everyone thinks they must have a circular polarizer. I encourage those on limited budget, like me, to get a used linear pol and try it out. The result may surprise you.

[I Simonius]

My wife and kids indulged my new hobby by getting me a couple of items from the local camera shop for father's day. One of the items they got on the store's recommendation was a 77mm Promaster circular polarizer filter.

My learning curve hasn't gotten to filters yet (other than the UV filter on the lens) but I am thinking of returning it. I like to shot as wide open as I can most of the time, and apparently I would lose up to 2 stops with this filter.

What is the advantage of having this filter? I hesitate to put something in front of the 70-200L that may change the optics. Haven't really noticed any glare or color problems that were not self inflicted.

Any advice appreciated.

RICK

A good quality circular polariser will help to remove certain reflections but especially really saturated colours at a 90% angle to the sun.

Can you remember ever using polaroid sunglasses? Same effect.
Rich juicy super saturated colours. Oh yeah and you can cut the reflectioon on water to see if there's a little fishy there waiting to be grabbed for supper

You will notice this much more on a wider lens than a telephoto

I would recommend circ-pols for lenses wider than 85mm, not a lot of use on a long lens, at least not often. I mean youi can go out looking to use it but by and large you'll use it much less on a 70-200 zoom than say a 17-40.

Best to use though on faster lenses (this usually means prime lenses) because you lose two stops Not as bad a s it sounds though because you will only want to use it on bright clear sunny days where its effect is seen best, therefore you wil have plenty of light to allow that extra 2 stops

You have to watch out for patches of sky darkening on very wide angles as they take in more sky than is at 90% angle to the sun, so only that bit is really darkened (by the light being polarised)

So in a nutshellI I wouldn't bother for your 70-200 zoom as you'll rarely use it but as soon as you get wider lenses than yes get one for each lens (i.e. for each different filter size)

[jfrancho]

Although I don't currently own any L lenses, I'm considering buying the significantly more expensive 77mm filter size. That way I can be sure to only have to buy one filter for all present and future lenses, and for each lens size a step-down ring. Does that make sense? :(Perfect sense. I have a 62mm CP, and a 77mm CP, plus a bunch of step up rings. I've considered getting a Tamron lens cap for each CP as well.

[I Simonius]

From my experience, it works fine with 20D's focusing mechanism. Of course, if the front lens mount rotates (ie. non-internal focusing lens), then you have to adjust the filter after focusing.

Linear polarizers are very cheap these days because everyone thinks they must have a circular polarizer. I encourage those on limited budget, like me, to get a used linear pol and try it out. The result may surprise you.

you need a circular-polariser to work on a DSLR

[Hydro]

Thanks for all your replies. For a bit of clarification for my noob knowledge base----attached is a shot taken of my kid last week, which based on the replies would seem to be the type of condition you would use this filter for. What do you think that filter would do to improve a shot like this taken on the water in bright sunlight? I kind of like the way the water looks, and I guess you could saturate a bit more in PS if you wanted---but would the polarizer really punch it up coming out of the camera?

This image just posted up quickly from my laptop with minor levels adjustment and a little USM.

[MrChad]

you need a circular-polariser to work on a DSLR

It has noting to do with DSLR? It's the metering system.
Circular Vs. Linear Polarizers

There are two types of polarizing filters available — linear or circular. Linear polarizers are more effective and less expensive than circular ones. But circular polarizers are needed with just about any camera that has a through-the-lens metering system, or autofocus.

The reason for this is that both of these systems use semi-silvered mirrors to siphon off some of the light coming though the lens. If that light is linearly polarized it renders either the metering or the autofocus ineffective. This means that you're going to have to buy circular polarizers unless you're shooting with a pre-1970's camera, or a view camera.

above from: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml
but do a google and others will list the same, I have many books that have this as well.

[lostdoggy]

It has noting to do with DSLR? It's the metering system.
Circular Vs. Linear Polarizers

There are two types of polarizing filters available — linear or circular. Linear polarizers are more effective and less expensive than circular ones. But circular polarizers are needed with just about any camera that has a through-the-lens metering system, or autofocus.

The reason for this is that both of these systems use semi-silvered mirrors to siphon off some of the light coming though the lens. If that light is linearly polarized it renders either the metering or the autofocus ineffective. This means that you're going to have to buy circular polarizers unless you're shooting with a pre-1970's camera, or a view camera.

above from: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml
but do a google and others will list the same, I have many books that have this as well.

Thank You for confirming that, I was about to second guess myself. I thought I might be wrong.

[I Simonius]

It has noting to do with DSLR? It's the metering system.
Circular Vs. Linear Polarizers

There are two types of polarizing filters available — linear or circular. Linear polarizers are more effective and less expensive than circular ones. But circular polarizers are needed with just about any camera that has a through-the-lens metering system, or autofocus.

The reason for this is that both of these systems use semi-silvered mirrors to siphon off some of the light coming though the lens. If that light is linearly polarized it renders either the metering or the autofocus ineffective. This means that you're going to have to buy circular polarizers unless you're shooting with a pre-1970's camera, or a view camera.

above from: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml
but do a google and others will list the same, I have many books that have this as well.

Your explanation is correct but it what I said is also true, you do need a circ pol to work ona DSLR. I did not mean by that that only DSLRs need them. I was pointing out that a previous posts suggestion to use a linear on a DSLR wouldn't work.

[mrclark321]

Just recieved my Hoya Pro1 Wide Band CP in the mail today, Now I have a whole new learning curve to go through!!! I seem to notice a loss in purformance but this just could be me. BTW this is on my 70-200f/4. Will try to post some pics
with and without filter.

Dan

[wilflee]

I don't want to start a cir-pol vs lin-pol dabate here. But do encourage everyone to go dig out that old linear polarizer you have stashed away in the bottom of an old camera bag and test it on their 20D. All these theories are theories. Only testing proves if it is true or false. (I also have read numerous web sites telling me I must chang oil in my car every 3000 miles but I change @ 6000 and haven't had oil related problems ever). For me, it works. The 20D focused fine and the exposure dropped 2 stops consistently with the linear polarizer mounted vs no filter. The 5 minutes of testing saved me over $100 for a new cir-pol.

What's there to lose?

[MrChad]

Circular Polarizers have been around a lot longer then DSLR's, I had one for my pentax K-1000 so that isn't the issue. Again TTL metering was the reason for the CPF instead of the LPF.

If you have a LPF laying around I'd try it too, but if you are buying one from scratch I would get a CPF. But I don't think your first one needs to be $200+ either.....

Depending on filter size a CPF can run $30 for a no name. Wow, pricey.....

[jfrancho]

(I also have read numerous web sites telling me I must chang oil in my car every 3000 miles but I change @ 6000 and haven't had oil related problems ever). For me, it works...What's there to lose?You are right, your oil should be just fine. It's your motor you are compromising.