Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 28 Dec 2014 (Sunday) 12:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Horrible polarizers

 
notastockpikr
Senior Member
427 posts
Likes: 66
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Canada
     
Jan 02, 2015 09:22 |  #16

Tareq wrote in post #17361605 (external link)
Reasonably priced? how much it is for 82mm thread or 95mm size?

rated #1 by the LensTip test? So is it the best reference to build recommendation? and what if another link/site test gave #1 to another brand such as Hoya or B+W, who we should trust or follow? I can make a test and then pretend to give #1 to a certain name filter, honestly speaking, when 2-3 filters are very good it is really hard to put one as #1 by all tests or always, i have B+W and i always hear top high reviews about its quality, should i change that to this Marumi now because it is rated #1 from somewhere?

As I stated in my response, rated #1 by lenstip. See the links posted by NWPhil above. It's the only reference that I have ever seen. Decide for yourself whether this test is worth making buying decisions. In addtion, I use the Marumi CPL's and the price is very reasonable. BW are great CPL's and lenstip rated them as tied with the Marumi.

Change your CPL's if you want ....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
43,143 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3025
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jan 02, 2015 09:33 |  #17

Tareq wrote in post #17361605 (external link)
i have B+W and i always hear top high reviews about its quality, should i change that to this Marumi now because it is rated #1 from somewhere?

I have been conflicted about Marumi polarizer, after reading here on POTN and seeing his example photos about his complaint that Marumi polarizer caused noticeable blue shift in photos! The Lenstip tests did not deal with neutrality of color of polarizers. And just maybe Marumi changed their source of polarizer plates.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
THREAD ­ STARTER
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,685 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 269
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Jan 02, 2015 10:30 |  #18

I bought some of my filters at maxsaver.net. It does not open anymore. Any other recommendation, beyond B&H and Adorama?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
43,143 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3025
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jan 02, 2015 10:32 as a reply to  @ Lbsimon's post |  #19

http://www.2filter.com​/ (external link)


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
THREAD ­ STARTER
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,685 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 269
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Jan 02, 2015 12:11 |  #20

Thanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Avatar
17,853 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 440
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ajman - UAE
     
Jan 02, 2015 12:46 |  #21

In fact i had an old version of Marumi C.Polarizer and if i still remember it is my first ever CPL filter i bought before moving to another better names, and i put that Marumi for sale so long time ago but sounds no one will ever buy it, it wasn't that good quality, and i don't know if the company did improve their filters glasses or not, but as long there are other names better quality i just don't waste more money to buy cheaper and not top quality, in fact i bought 2 B+W CPL and i want to sell one because i don't use CPL much and depending more in 4x4 CPL instead.


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/ (external link)
Gear List
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,962 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 513
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Jan 03, 2015 19:51 |  #22

awesomeshots wrote in post #17354305 (external link)
Not paying over a thousand dollars on a quality lens to put on a fifty bucks cheap glass in front of it. So no filter for me thank you. :D

Just bought the 135 2.0 couple of days before the Christmas and when the salesman asked me if I wanted to get a filter? When I said no he asked why and when I told him the exact same words he looked at me like I was committing some kind of a sin lol. :lol:

Are you confusing the use of UV filters, mostly used for protection by some, with the subject of this topic, circular polarizer filters (CPL) which are quite a different animal and serve a real photographic purpose?


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
awesomeshots
Goldmember
1,220 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 133
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Los Angeles
     
Jan 04, 2015 14:07 |  #23

mwsilver wrote in post #17364632 (external link)
Are you confusing the use of UV filters, mostly used for protection by some, with the subject of this topic, circular polarizer filters (CPL) which are quite a different animal and serve a real photographic purpose?

Answer is no. And I'm still not using it. Unless I'm shooting straight in to the sun, even than I'm sure I don't need it. I'm sure I can manage the get the picture the way I want it without the polarizer filter.
Beauty of the digital age. :D

Thank you. ;)


Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 6D, Canon 24-70 F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/4L IS, 135mm 2.0 L, 85mm 1.8, Speedlite 430 II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
THREAD ­ STARTER
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,685 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 269
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Jan 04, 2015 14:20 as a reply to  @ awesomeshots's post |  #24

I think it is a misconception. The digital age cannot remove the reflection off water, or reduce the glare of the leaves on trees. One needs a polarizer for that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,962 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 513
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Jan 04, 2015 22:25 |  #25

awesomeshots wrote in post #17365831 (external link)
Answer is no. And I'm still not using it. Unless I'm shooting straight in to the sun, even than I'm sure I don't need it. I'm sure I can manage the get the picture the way I want it without the polarizer filter.
Beauty of the digital age. :D

Thank you. ;)

You would never use a polarizer shooting straight into the sun. You generally want the sun to be at a 45 degree angle from the direction you are shooting. Frankly, it seems pretty obvious you don't understand the purpose of a polarizing filter or how to use one. I strongly suggest you do some research on the subject. You are really missing out. Professional polarizers like the B+W MRC Kaesemann CPLs are relatively pricey, but worth every penny.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
farmer1957
Senior Member
Avatar
901 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 60
Joined Jul 2012
Location: nevada
     
Jan 05, 2015 12:02 |  #26

awesomeshots wrote in post #17365831 (external link)
Answer is no. And I'm still not using it. Unless I'm shooting straight in to the sun, even than I'm sure I don't need it. I'm sure I can manage the get the picture the way I want it without the polarizer filter.
Beauty of the digital age. :D

Thank you. ;)


I photography my own products that I sale Local and online.
Most of my products have a smooth surface, which once polarized light strikes the smooth surface becomes polarized reflection AKA glare.

Before you say anything else about using polarized filters I strongly suggest you buy and read the book Light Science and Magic.

In all honesty If you were to read the book I suggested then you would understand what you are saying now is pretty much making yourself look like you have no understanding of polarized light...............

Farmer




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,405 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4557
Joined Dec 2008
Post edited over 5 years ago by LV Moose. (3 edits in all)
     
Jan 05, 2015 12:17 |  #27

mwsilver wrote in post #17366608 (external link)
You would never use a polarizer shooting straight into the sun. You generally want the sun to be at a 45 degree angle from the direction you are shooting. Frankly, it seems pretty obvious you don't understand the purpose of a polarizing filter or how to use one. I strongly suggest you do some research on the subject. You are really missing out. Professional polarizers like the B+W MRC Kaesemann CPLs are relatively pricey, but worth every penny.

I thought it was 90 degrees.


I let the salesman talk me into a crappy chinese-made filter set when I bought my 40D long ago. :oops:

Since then, it's been B+W for me. I'll buy another one this week for a new lens I just picked up for Christmas. 82mm filters aren't cheap, but as mentioned, quality is worth it.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Harm
I don't always post, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis....
Avatar
48,634 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 486
Joined Jan 2008
     
Jan 05, 2015 12:27 |  #28

^ this.

it may be run out of a barn or something tiny like that, but i have always had great experience with them.


SmugMug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Harm
I don't always post, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis....
Avatar
48,634 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 486
Joined Jan 2008
     
Jan 05, 2015 12:30 |  #29

IMAGE: http://harm.smugmug.com/City-Life/Boston/i-k8HSqrx/0/XL/880A4455-XL.jpg

turn polariser 90°, 3 seconds later another shot:


IMAGE: http://harm.smugmug.com/City-Life/Boston/i-sZG5jcB/0/XL/880A4456-XL.jpg

SmugMug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1056
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Post edited over 5 years ago by Alveric.
     
Jan 05, 2015 12:42 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

Harm wrote in post #17367403 (external link)
QUOTED IMAGE

turn polariser 90°, 3 seconds later another shot:


QUOTED IMAGE

I like the colour of the water better in the first shot, but the sky sux. The sky looks awesome in the second shot, but the water sux. Question is, which was the actual colour of the water? Only you can tell, since you were there.

Yes, it's 90°. But with ultra wide angles, even at 90° you'll get an uneven sky.

Polarisers are a must have with product photography: they not only let you eliminate the glare, but control it as well. My modus operandi is to kill the glare completely and then start rotating the polariser slowly so as to start re-introducing the glare by small amounts till I get that smidgen that puts a nice shine/highlight on the subject making it evident that its surface is glossy.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,219 views & 0 likes for this thread
Horrible polarizers
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is genobinia
799 guests, 297 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.