Green Hoya CP ok or is HMC needed?

I see on Ebay there are the cheap green uncoated polarizer filters, are they ok to use? I was going to get 1 for the 17-40 L and the 70-200 L I don't want to get a $90 filter.

If I really should use a multicoated filter are there other brands that are good that are cheap and have a multicoating?

Don't buy a good L lens and put a piece of crap glass in front of it. If you can't afford a good filter, don't use one at all. If you get one, make sure it's multi-coated. I like B+W filters myself.

I have to agree with Tim, though I haven't purchased a B&W. Yet.

Then don't buy a filter. It is self defeating buying a cheap filter to stick on the front of good glass. You might as well have bought a cheap lens in the first place.

I heard that popular photography did a test and they found no difference from a single coated filter and a multicoated filter...

but OK, I won't get one....

I paid $170 and change for a 77mm polarizing filter for my L lenses. Fortunately, all three lenses take the same filter size. This filter is equal to the task. I, too, would shun the cheap garbage filters so that I get the quality of results that I paid for with my lenses.

Likewise, I never use a UV filter for "protection" because they don't do much of anything except provide two extra surfaces to cause flare - especially when I always have good quality lens hoods mounted.

In perfect circumstances there probably won't be a difference, but there are times when the shot won't be in perfect circumstances.

Look here: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=86910
The first shot was done with an uncoated filter, the second with no filter at all. A very good multi-coated filter will be much closer to the second shot.

Granted, this is an extreme situation, but it very clearly shows the bad things that can happen with an inexpensive uncoated filter.

It really just sucks that I would have to spend $120 for 2 filters, one 67mm and one 77mm. A I think a 10cm step down ring might look pretty goofy, but I don't know what they look like. I guess I'll hold off and just do the editing in Photoshop...

You actually use a "step-up" ring.

I just ordered one of these so I can use my 77mm CircPol on a lens that uses a 67mm filter.

The problem with a circpol is that you can't use a hood with it, or at least it's very difficult to with some lens/hood combos. Because of this, I would think that at least for this particular filter you would want a good multicoated variety.

$60 for one filter and $7 for a step-up ring. I have a 77mm CPL on my 67mm Tamron and it works (and looks) fine - except that I can't put the hood on, but that's OK since I need to turn the CPL as Bob says.

Even $60 for a 77mm CPL won't buy you a "good" one. I'm guessing that you're looking at the Tiffen which is $67.50 at B&H. It is not multicoated. The cheapest 77mm multi-coated that I can find on B&H's site is the B&W for $145.

>>I heard that popular photography did a test and no difference from a single coated filter and a multicoated filter<<

Makes you wonder if they tested so that both were in situations where flare was an issue. If they didn't, they didn't do a good test!

This really is a ridiculous statement by them. After having worn eye glasses for 35 years I can easily attest to the usefullness of multi-coated lenses. I remember in the old days when certain lighting conditions would cause my eyelashes to reflect on the inside of my glasses. I haven't seen that in many years thanks to multi-coated lenses. I also remember wanting multiple coats that I couldn't get - cincompatibility or something. Multi-coating rocks.