Polarising filters - filters aint filters?

[Drk Orange]

B&H have Canon polarising filters for $125 but also have a generic brand for only $54. Why the price difference? Is it just the brand, or are the canon more than twice as good?

[robertwgross]

At the last time that I checked it, Canon does not manufacture their own polarizing filters. So, the Canon filter is probably made in the same factory as the cheaper one. I can't imagine that many of the Canon filters are sold if there is that much price difference.

With some types of filters, like UV, the anti-reflective coatings on the glass make a difference. However, with a circular polarizer, you are not going to be shooting mostly at the sun angle, so I don't think the coatings are all that big of a deal.

Hoya and Tiffen sell lots of polarizers.

---Bob Gross---

[willg]

yeah i bought a polarizer for $30 and it was fine....is there any real difference?

[Drk Orange]

Originally Posted by willg

yeah i bought a polarizer for $30 and it was fine....is there any real difference?

The only negative I have had with a polarising filter is one (I believe it was a known brand) that fell off the lens when I was adjusting it - note to self, always adjust in an anti-clockwise direction - bounced down a cliff-face and landed in the ocean. I was able to retrieve it and a few weeks later there was some separation between the two glass layers.

I am guessing that level of abuse will affect any filter no matter the brand.

[weemannie]

I believe that Canon do produce Polarisers.

Basically the difference is in the quality of the optics. Whether or not its twice as good is a personal opinion

[Bodryn]

There is a difference between circular polarizers and simple polarizers. Apparently some digital cameras are not compatible with the simple polarizers so for best image quality you have to go to circular polarizers which cost a lot more. This topic was covered in detail some time ago on this website, nicely explained by somebody who knew the topic - maybe you can do a search or something and get the details. Sorry I can't remember more than that.

[Hellashot]

Originally Posted by Bodryn

There is a difference between circular polarizers and simple polarizers. Apparently some digital cameras are not compatible with the simple polarizers so for best image quality you have to go to circular polarizers which cost a lot more. This topic was covered in detail some time ago on this website, nicely explained by somebody who knew the topic - maybe you can do a search or something and get the details. Sorry I can't remember more than that.

AF cameras require circular polarizers where MF cameras can use either linear or circular. A linear polarizer can be used on an AF camera if using MF only.

[Drk Orange]

Both filters mentioned are circular polarised.

[I Simonius]

This is Xactly the thread I was going to post so glad it's already up and running:

Assuming we know the difference twixt linear and circ pols, UV and skylights, I also would like to know if anyone has any experience re cheapo version of filters versus Xpensieve ones

I got some cheapo shop Branded ones, (Jessops)and whilst I think they're OKish I think they could be better
e.g. the circ pols don't seem to darken the sky that much _ I remember before when I used HOYA filters that I got a much darker sky ( If I pointed it at 90% to the sun)

I also wonder whether the coatings you might not get on more Xpensieve filters(UV , skylight1 A+B) are worth the Xtra cost

Opinions - thoughts- experiences- Fire away!

[DocFrankenstein]

I guess the difference between the cheap and expensive is the quality... Some may flare, some may soften the image... I've heard that some ones peel off after time... never happened with mine.

In the end you're better off comparing the two, and deciding which ones are better suited for your requirements.

For example, I wouldn't even think of putting an expensive polarizer on the kit lens... But on 50/1.8 I would probably put a B+W or a Hoya Pro1