Do you use a polarizing filter? Why or why not?

Yes. Expect to pay over 100 for a really good multi-coated CPL. They are cheap compared to your camera. Why ruin a good lens with a cheap filter?

GilBean

They are also great if you are shooting through glass/windows...

i-G12 wrote in post #14796878
So this begs the question: What kind/brand do people like?

Guy at the camera store was telling me the good ones are like $150.

They can go up from that, too Depending on brand, source/retailer, multicoating, etc, yes; that is not a horrible price to pay. Although, plenty of folks manage to get pretty decent filters for somewhere in the $80 - $150 range.

I'm big fan of my B+W Kaesemann (77mm) multicoated CPL; I paid about $120 for it, IIRC.

ashiundar wrote in post #14796906
I once read somewhere that the guys at camera shops try to sucker customers into buying filters, because they make the most money on accessories, not the camera itself. Can anyone back this up?

All of the 'accessories' are high markup value items for the retailers. So, your filters, cleaning clothes, lens pens, those goofy little tabletop stands for your iPhone, etc all fall under that category. The markup on the cameras and lenses is marginal, at best, for those guys. I made a crack to my guy at the shop when I bought my 100-400 and a microfiber cloth about boosting his commission and he just shook his head and mumbled that the cloth was giving him a better boost than the lens

Hoya Moose $54 (http://www.amazon.com …r-Polarizer/dp/B0000AI1J​8) in a 67mm size. Great polarizer!

So how many stops do polarizers cost you? (Yeah I'm new at this).

i-G12 wrote in post #14797103
So how many stops do polarizers cost you? (Yeah I'm new at this).

1.5 - 2 stops usually. You can get some high transmission CPLs from Hoya and Singh Ray, now, that keep that to the lower end of the spectrum.

Like others, I use one when the situation calls for it. Despite what I saw someone else say on here, you can't fix in post what a circular polarizer does for you.

While it is true that there is no need for a UV or skylight filter since the sensor has a UV filter on it already, a circular polarizer is a different animal entirely. It basically filters out stray scattered light and reflections and is adjustable. It keeps this light from hitting the sensor which you can't just remove easily afterwards without serious manipulation such as cloning out reflections in glass. Do a google search on how a circular polarizer works if you want to learn the specifics. All the other filters can be replicated easily in post, but a CP does a lot more than simply increase contrast.

Anything you put on the front of your lens has the potential to degrade image quality. When you just paid several hundred or even thousand dollars on a good lens the last thing you want to do is stick a piece of cheap glass on the front of it unless you absolutely have to. When you do have to, it makes the most sense to go with the highest quality you can justify considering how it will be used and how often.

For DSLRs there are only a couple of filters that you really need. The circular polarizer, the neutral density filter and possibly a graduated neutral density filter. ND filters basically restrict the light reaching the sensor allowing you to shoot long shutter speeds in bright light or to use a wider aperture in bright light at a shutter speed slow enough to use a flash. A graduated ND does the same as an ND but it lets you apply it to part of a scene and not the whole thing. A bright sky for example can be brought down so you can expose properly for the foreground.

Generally, the cheaper the filter, the lower the quality is of the glass used. I suppose of you wanted you could hold a cheap sunglass lens in front of your lens as an ND filter. But you probably wouldn't like the result. Cheaper glass can make images soft and can more easily cause you to have flare problems. Also, different wavelengths of light pass through such filters differently and it takes some serious engineering to get a lens to filter polarized light or work as a neutral density filter without creating a color cast or throwing off the color balance in a way that can be difficult to correct for in post - especially if those color shifts are uneven throughout the frame.

Only you know if you need one. Polling others is irrelevant. It's all about what you want to shoot. But if you do get one, don't use it unless absolutely necessary for the image you are shooting. And don't go cheap. Marumi is perhaps the best value out there. There is a slight color shift but it is even and can be handled in post and image degradation is minimal. It's almost as good as B+W but not quite. But it is worth the money for occasional use.

rrblint wrote in post #14796889
Hold-over from film...There are many ways in digital PP to make white clouds stand out against a deep blue sky, but a polarizer is still among the easiest.

Darkening skies is only one of several things that a polarizer is good for.

In fact, a polarizer is the one and only filter that is NOT simply a hold-over from film.

^^ Thanks for the information.

Seems to me my biggest concern is the loss of stops. The lens I will have is 3.5-5.6...Most of my shooting is outside but how's that work early mornings/dusk when you're losing light because of the filter? Ugh.

i-G12 wrote in post #14797514
^^ Thanks for the information.

Seems to me my biggest concern is the loss of stops. The lens I will have is 3.5-5.6...Most of my shooting is outside but how's that work early mornings/dusk when you're losing light because of the filter? Ugh.

Easy; tripod and shutter release cable

I have a polarizing filter in every size of lens thread that I own. You can use it to reduce glare and increase contrast, but also you may choose to add glare or change the look of a surface slightly for a more matte or more glossy effect with certain surfaces/objects.

Just did this on a shoot of my Ducati Diavel on an overcast day, at a location near a boat dock and body of water (the Intracoastal canal, in S. Florida) with a bridge in the background. Some of the shots I used to increase contrast, and on some I wanted that glossy reflective effect on the bike to make it stand out a bit.

I am old school and prefer to do minimal processing in post, because partly I feel it's cheating and almost can be a crutch for not perfecting one's shooting technique. I am more proud to have shots come out of the camera as close as I want them, vs ones I need to do processing beyond the very basics. Maybe a little too purist but I enjoy the photography more than the processing. I also use Singh-Ray square filters for landscapes and sunsets, although its a whole event to set your camera up with these.

Can't hurt to have one handy in your bag and play around with and without it, rotating for different contrast and glare, and see what comes of it!

Yes, it's a must have for landscape imho.

For landscape.. it's a must.

krb wrote in post #14797497
Darkening skies is only one of several things that a polarizer is good for.

In fact, a polarizer is the one and only filter that is NOT simply a hold-over from film.

Apparently my previous post was misleading.

So, for the record:

1.) When I said "hold-over from film", I simply meant that FOR ME it is something I learned to use back in the film days and I've never changed from using it with digital.
2.) I did not mean to imply that darkening of skies was the ONLY use for a polarizer, only that this is MY primary use. Indeed it does have MANY useful applications, as documented by many other posters.
3.)Nor did I mean to imply that ANY of the effects of a polarizer(other than darkening of the sky, and even this not as effectively) could be easily replicated in PP.

I apologize for any confusion.

Yes, because I take pics of cars mostly and a CPL makes them pop out!