Polarizers and Sports Photography

[smassey]

Hi everyone. I recently picked up a Canon 70-200L F/2.8 lens that I plan on using for sports photography. When I was at the camera store, the salesman said that I would eventually need a polarizer if I plan on shooting outdoors.

Does anyone use a polarizer when shooting outdoor sports photography?

[CoolToolGuy]

Originally Posted by smassey

Hi everyone. I recently picked up a Canon 70-200L F/2.8 lens that I plan on using for sports photography. When I was at the camera store, the salesman said that I would eventually need a polarizer if I plan on shooting outdoors.

Does anyone use a polarizer when shooting outdoor sports photography?

I use one whenever I can (when there is enough light). A polarizer makes the colors more pure and gives better saturation by reducing the reflections. Racecars, sports jerseys, even the grass on a field all respond to a polarizer.

When I buy a new lens I get a UV filter for it and I make sure that I have a polarizer that fits it. If it is a new filter size I get a new polarizer in that size.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

[gasrocks]

Polarizers cost you a variable amount of light, usually 3-4 f/stops. Many sports pix wouldn't happen with that loss. Poliz. work sometimes in some situations, I doubt I would have it along if I was only going out for sports pix. Depends on the sport, of course. I am thinking action, and close-ups of action. A wide scenic shot of the golf course would be another matter.

[CoolToolGuy]

Originally Posted by gasrocks

Polarizers cost you a variable amount of light, usually 3-4 f/stops. Many sports pix wouldn't happen with that loss. Poliz. work sometimes in some situations, I doubt I would have it along if I was only going out for sports pix. Depends on the sport, of course. I am thinking action, and close-ups of action. A wide scenic shot of the golf course would be another matter.

Geez, what polarizer do you use? The rule of thumb that I have used for 30 years is 1.5 to 2 stops. That is workable - but if you cut 3-4 stops it can make a difference. I would shop for another brand of polarizer if you are losing 4 stops.

Have Fun,

[frydryce]

the extra stop can help you to have a slower shutter speed with lower apertures to capture motion blur nicer. ived used it for some motor sports events successfully.

however as soon as the sun starts setting you'd want to take off the polarizer.

and like said above, it all depends on what you want to do. outdoors photography doesnt require a polarizer. its just a sales point that salespeople use to get you to buy high margin items.

[Curtis N]

Originally Posted by gasrocks

Polarizers cost you a variable amount of light, usually 3-4 f/stops.

I don't know where you buy your polarizers, but one like that could also be used as a lens for a welding helmet.

1 1/2 - 2 stops would be a closer approximation.

[Paul_B]

Hi everyone. I recently picked up a Canon 70-200L F/2.8 lens that I plan on using for sports photography

I also have a 70-200 2.8 Sigma, that I use mostly for the same thing. Would anyone have (or link to) a before and after. I'd like to see the difference. If it gives it a good "punch" to the pictures, I'd like to buy one and try it.
I've never or owned any, do they come in certain color's for different scenes ?. What kind would one want for outdoor soccer ?.

[smassey]

I plan on shooting a lot of soccer and tennis during afternoon games, and my problem is the outdoor stadium I am in gets a lot of direct afternoon sun. This tends to blow out the white jerseys of the home team. Would a polarizer help in that situation?

[CoolToolGuy]

Originally Posted by Paul_B

I've never or owned any, do they come in certain color's for different scenes ?. What kind would one want for outdoor soccer ?.

There are different quality levels, like all filters - cheap ones, Hoya and B+W, plain and muli-coated. In addition, there is a type known as a Kaesemann (sp?) that is supposed to produce better results. But none of those intentionally produce different colors.

There are some exceptions. One criticism of polarizers is that they make the colors (especially the sky) colder. There are warming polarizers that have a colored glass that warms up the colors a bit. I see and understand the propaganda, but I have never seen the need to get one. Some day I may try one and do a comparison. In addition, there are now some other color-enhancing polarizers, but they are pretty specialized, and very expensive. I found this link on them:

http://www.singh-ray.com/polarizers.html

As for the comment that outdoor photography doesn't require a polarizer, I suggest you take a polarizer outside and train it on a car in the sun, especially including the windshield. Turn that baby (the polarizer) through a couple of revolutions and you will see the colors become purer as the reflections are reduced, and you will find the point at which you will be able to see right through the windshield. With a driver there (like in a race car) it can make all the difference.

My additional 2 cents.

Have Fun,

[grego]

For sports, you'll be fine with a UV filter. You can use a polarizer, but you'll be fine with an affordable UV filter.

[Elisabeth-Ann]

I use a polarizer or ND filter for landscapes and especially since I live in an area where the sun shines a lot, and we have a lot of sand and sea, hence a lot of glare. I don't use it for action shots, always have a UV filter on my lens.

[Wilt]

<I plan on shooting a lot of soccer and tennis during afternoon games, and my problem is the outdoor stadium I am in gets a lot of direct afternoon sun. This tends to blow out the white jerseys of the home team. Would a polarizer help in that situation?>

The prime benefit of a polarizer is that it can reduce the amount of light which is reflected off a surface, but only if it hits your lens from a certain angle. That is why you can see some reflected light disappear, while some also appears affected very little.
Any light bouncing off the jerseys MIGHT be polarized and would be reduced by the filter, but much of the brightness is simply the relative intensity of the jerseys in the sunlight rather than any polarization of that light!

[KennyG]

A downside with using a polarizer for motorpsort is it can show up the stresses in laminated widshields at certain angles. As you have no control over the angle of a racing car, it is really only of any use on open wheel single seaters, and even then due to the changing angles it is hit-miss.

For 'blown out' clothing, such as jerseys, the problem is exposure, not reflected light and a polarizer is unlikely to help.

[CoolToolGuy]

Originally Posted by KennyG

A downside with using a polarizer for motorpsort is it can show up the stresses in laminated widshields at certain angles. As you have no control over the angle of a racing car, it is really only of any use on open wheel single seaters, and even then due to the changing angles it is hit-miss.

I haven't sold nearly as many images as Kenny, but for closed cars the difference between seeing a reflection of the sky in the windshield and seeing the driver is enough for me. And the difference between glare coming off of the hood and fenders and the color of the car is significant as well.

Then again, he shoots a lot in the UK - I heard that the sun actually came out during a race there once

Have Fun,

[neil_r]

Originally Posted by CoolToolGuy

I
Then again, he shoots a lot in the UK - I heard that the sun actually came out during a race there once

Thats right...... They had to red flag it.