Circular polarizer for super telephotos?

Bearmann wrote in post #16320939
OK. I was guessing that perhaps after going through the lens elements, that there was less light in the horizontal plane to be blocked by the polarizer. Do you have a theory to explain it? Do you think the Canon brand polarizer is just less efficient than other brands?

I don't think the Canon brand polarizer is any less efficient than other CPLs. (Though just judging from looking at it, I don't think it's multi-coated like some of the better, standard CPLs.)

It's just part of the nature of a very long telephoto focal length, that the light travelling through the lens is already pretty well aligned already and there is less obllique, stray or scattered light bouncing around inside the lens for the polarizer to filter out.

I've got a Canon drop-in that I use occasionally in my 300 and 500mm lenses. It's useful for various things... shooting around water, reducing the reflectance if needed/wanted.... shooting motorsports, where glare on windshields can obstruct the view or paintwork colors can be a bit more saturated with some polarization. But a rear-mount, drop in CPL on a big tele lens is bound to have somewhat less effect than one mounted up front on a wider lens.

I bought one for my 500 and have never used it. Maybe I should give it a try one of these days.

Tapeman wrote in post #16321700
I bought one for my 500 and have never used it. Maybe I should give it a try one of these days.

Well at least it was only $240.

I find from time to time, I wish I had used one after I go home and review the photos. For me, it's sometimes just laziness that stops me from using one.

powaysteve wrote in post #16320330
The information from Henry's is wrong! Their link is to the screw-in filter holder which does not work with a polarizing filter because you would not have any way to turn the polarizer.

The only polarizer that will work is the one in the link from B&H or Adorama. It has the wheel on the top so that you can turn the polarizer. It is the only drop-in polarizer that will work with your 200-400 or any of thew supertelephoto lenses.

Ok. Thank you. It is weird because the product description seems to be that of the screw in design but the product image is that of the CPL.

I can't believe a dedicated camera store could get that sooooo wrong.

I don't have a polarizer, but I can attest to the need for one with waterfowl photography. I have some very real problems with glare, especially in images of diving ducks, shortly after they have surfaced and still have a lot of water on their plumage.

Here is an example of a "glare problem" (attached). Note the huge blare blobs shining off of the duck's breast, as well as all of the tiny glare points on it's head.

For those who have used the drop-in polarizer with supertelephotos, I have a question: would the use of the polarizer completely eliminate the glare that is shining off of the duck's feathers? Or, would it just eliminate some of it, leaving me with a complex editing task to remove the rest?

It is really not easy to clone out large areas of glare, because of the difficulty of re-creating all of the intricate feather detail that was underneath the glare. Taking the glare out is easy, replacing it with accurate feather detail is difficult and time-consuming. It'd be great if the drop-in polarizer would entirely eliminate this problem.

^^ shoot in better light.

No polarizer.

Bobby, I think we all know what can be done in near-perfect light without a polarizer. I wanted to know what can be done with a polarizer, especially in those situations when there is a lot of glare coming off of a bird's plumage.

I carefully constructed that post to ask a very pertinent question, and took the time to dig deep in my files to find an image that shows a glare problem. I feel as if you flippantly dismissed my question when you respond with "shoot in better light", and say nothing more about what I had asked.

Believe it or not, the light in the photo I posted was pretty darn good. It was taken at 4 in the afternoon on March 5th, when the sun is quite low in the sky. If you want direct sunlight on a bird, and want to capture a bird that just emerged from a dive, and has lots of water on his plumage, you are going to get glare off of the feathers, even when the sunlight is soft and the sun is low in the sky, as it was for the image I posted.

I would still like to know if the use of Canon's circular polarizer would eliminate this problem. if so, would it completely eliminate the glare, or would it just eliminate some of it? If anyone has used the drop-in polarizer with a Canon supertelephoto for this type of image, in that kind of light, I would like to know how well it worked.

Hello Bobbyz. In your second shot above, were the eyes really that red or did you pull it out a bit in PP?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16324696
Bobby, I think we all know what can be done in near-perfect light without a polarizer. I wanted to know what can be done with a polarizer, especially in those situations when there is a lot of glare coming off of a bird's plumage.

I carefully constructed that post to ask a very pertinent question, and took the time to dig deep in my files to find an image that shows a glare problem. I feel as if you flippantly dismissed my question when you respond with "shoot in better light", and say nothing more about what I had asked.

Believe it or not, the light in the photo I posted was pretty darn good. If you want direct sunlight on a bird, and want to capture a bird that just emerged from a dive, and has lots of water on his plumage, you are going to get glare off of the feathers, even when the sunlight is soft and the sun is low in the sky, as it was for the image I posted.

I would still like to know if the use of Canon's circular polarizer would eliminate this problem. if so, would it completely eliminate the glare, or would it just eliminate some of it? If anyone has used the drop-in polarizer with a Canon supertelephoto for this type of image, in that kind of light, I would like to know how well it worked.

Thank you for sharing, Tom. I find examples are the best way to learn photogrpahy (for me anyways). When I first looked at your photo, I wasn't "offended" by the glare off the feathers. I guess it does blow out all the details, but is that always bad (totally honest question)?

JuliagGalax wrote in post #16323572
I also have CPL in my 500mm I am forced to shoot well in the mid day.

To make sure I understand what you're saying, are you saying that you use the drop-in CPL often (or all the time) when shooting in bright direct light?

I figure $240 isn't much to pay (on top of the expensive lenses) but I have to wait for the next time I'm in the U.S. Henrys in Canada still is insisting that their screw-in is the same as the CPL! You guys in the U.S. are so lucky when it comes to selection and product knowledge.

SunTsu wrote in post #16324709
Thank you for sharing, Tom. I find examples are the best way to learn photogrpahy (for me anyways). When I first looked at your photo, I wasn't "offended" by the glare off the feathers. I guess it does blow out all the details, but is that always bad (totally honest question)?

The glare is unattractive to me. We have a nicely-feathered bird with a beautiful plumage. But, instead of getting to see all of the feathers, some of them are glistening with glare. The glare is a bright, overexposed highlight - an ugly white blob, if you will - located right on our subject. There is a "rule" that POTN member airfrogusmc likes to quote, which basically says, "if there is something in your image that is not helping the image, then it is hurting the image . . . nothing is 'just there'."

SunTsu wrote in post #16324717
I figure $240 isn't much to pay (on top of the expensive lenses) but I have to wait for the next time I'm in the U.S. Henrys in Canada still is insisting that their screw-in is the same as the CPL! You guys in the U.S. are so lucky when it comes to selection and product knowledge.

Is there a reason you cannot order it thru the mail, from a retailer in the US? I order my stuff from B&H - is there some reason that you cannot do likewise? I think B&H ships to Canada, don't they?

I got one for birds on water I'm sort of yes and no on it with a 55-250 IS. Get a thick rubber band to grip it to remove I'm sure you discovered removing it a lot is like picking up mercury.
Sam

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16324351
I don't have a polarizer, but I can attest to the need for one with waterfowl photography. I have some very real problems with glare, especially in images of diving ducks, shortly after they have surfaced and still have a lot of water on their plumage.

Here is an example of a "glare problem" (attached). Note the huge blare blobs shining off of the duck's breast, as well as all of the tiny glare points on it's head.

For those who have used the drop-in polarizer with supertelephotos, I have a question: would the use of the polarizer completely eliminate the glare that is shining off of the duck's feathers? Or, would it just eliminate some of it, leaving me with a complex editing task to remove the rest?

It is really not easy to clone out large areas of glare, because of the difficulty of re-creating all of the intricate feather detail that was underneath the glare. Taking the glare out is easy, replacing it with accurate feather detail is difficult and time-consuming. It'd be great if the drop-in polarizer would entirely eliminate this problem.

I can't really vouch for the Canon CPL when shooting in your situation, however I have been very sucessful in aiming straight at the water and watching the glare disappear and being able to see the bottom, or when shooting some hydroplanes last summer, I was able to cut down on the wave glare a bit. I hope to shoot some waterfoul soon since I just aquired the 400mm DO and would really like to put it to use.