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

I use it quite often for outdoor shoots. Not only did it mute the glare for water, but also provide high-contrast for landscape shots.

Just ordered a B+W 77mm MRC CPL can't wait for it to arrive! I bought it for the landscapes I will be shooting during my vacation to Alaska.

It really helps deepen colors on a bright sunny day if you use a polarizer. I won't take any scenery pictures during the daylight hours without one.

photopr0 wrote in post #14798416
Just ordered a B+W 77mm MRC CPL can't wait for it to arrive! I bought it for the landscapes I will be shooting during my vacation to Alaska.

I would definitely take a CP to Alaska. If you get the 77mm, when you buy other lenses, buy a step-down ring for it so you can use your 77mm filter(s) on it rather than having multiple filters for each lens size.

Also, be mindful of the direction of light when using a CP at shorter focal lengths. Uneven polarization can make a sky look rather odd.

I don't use an ultrawide as my primary landscape lens. If I want more coverage, I get better results stitching up a panorama. I tried a polarizer on my 10-22 and the sky looked very dark on one side and very light on the other - somewhat unnatural.

I did miss a good shot once just walking around town without the polarizer. There was a sign in a window that said "Guard Dog on Duty" and a big cat was sitting next to it. I could not get a good picture because of the reflection in the window. A polarizer would have helped.

Yno wrote in post #14799505
I don't use an ultrawide as my primary landscape lens. If I want more coverage, I get better results stitching up a panorama. I tried a polarizer on my 10-22 and the sky looked very dark on one side and very light on the other - somewhat unnatural.

The changing effect in the sky would happen with stitched shots in a wide panorama as well as with an ultra-wide lens. The cause of the effect is the changing angle from the sun and thus the changing polarization of the light from the scene.

SkipD wrote in post #14799846
The changing effect in the sky would happen with stitched shots in a wide panorama as well as with an ultra-wide lens. The cause of the effect is the changing angle from the sun and thus the changing polarization of the light from the scene.

This is true. I actually like the gradient effect across the sky produced by a polarizing filter on an ultra-wide lens. It gives an image a very "big" feel to it.

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.

B + W

If I were buying one now, I would buy B+W. That being said, I'm currently using a Hoya one and am very happy with it.

tagnal wrote in post #14800648
If I were buying one now, I would buy B+W. That being said, I'm currently using a Hoya one and am very happy with it.

So, what's the difference between these two? No idea...

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_Circular_Polar​izing.html

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …777-REG/B_W_66044843.html

...besides $18.46

i-G12 wrote in post #14801792
So, what's the difference between these two? No idea...

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_Circular_Polar​izing.html

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …777-REG/B_W_66044843.html

...besides $18.46

It's kind of hidden in there, and I don't have any clue how valid the statement is for real life use, but:

"Kaesemann polarizing foils provide highly neutral coloring and higher image quality than conventional polarizing foils."

That being said, I have the Kaesemann myself, and it's a wonderful filter. For an $18 dollar difference, I'd do it over again, if I needed to.

A CPL filter (in 77mm, fits most of my Canon AND Nikon lenses) is always in my camera bag. Just don't forget to take it off, and wonder next shoot why you need such low shutter speeds (I'm sure I'm not Robinson Crusoe)
This tutorial is useful:
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=9yopg70z9Xk

Snydremark wrote in post #14801885
It's kind of hidden in there, and I don't have any clue how valid the statement is for real life use, but:

"Kaesemann polarizing foils provide highly neutral coloring and higher image quality than conventional polarizing foils."

That being said, I have the Kaesemann myself, and it's a wonderful filter. For an $18 dollar difference, I'd do it over again, if I needed to.

Thanks. Subtle to be sure. +$18....yeah...just money!

i-G12 wrote in post #14801792
So, what's the difference between these two? No idea...

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_Circular_Polar​izing.html

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …777-REG/B_W_66044843.html

...besides $18.46

I believe the Kaeseman is sealed to prevent moisture from getting inside.