Drop-in Filters for 400mm 2.8...

Thanks. Yea, I get frustrated when someone asks a question which isn't necessarily definitively answered and then doesn't follow up.

I got the working polarizer from B&H today. I did take some test shots, but deleted them. I will try to take some of birds this week to show the effect on a 400-800mm FL. I guess having used polarizers a lot - even for B&W photography back in the day - I know exactly what to expect. I must have a least a dozen for all my lenses and even have one to hold in front of my S100. At first I wondered if the DO optics were having a weird effect, but then just looking through he first polarizer without the lens told me it was not right.

On Flickr I only have that first shot of the Mallard taken with the DO. (Most of my lenses don't shot up in the EXIF because of my software settings). It's the sort of shot I would have used a polarizer with if I'd had one. It would have looked better for sure. I've mostly been using the lens at the zoo (Denver Zoo has some nice aviaries where you can get in with the birds) since I've been working a lot.

I will definitely add some images using the polarizer when I have some - maybe with comparison shots if I can turn the polarizer without loosing a potential keeper. I may not put them on Flickr, but can certainly send you full-sized versions of whatever I post if you want to check out details. I will do the customary IQ check with the polarizer at some point - possibly this weekend.

ejenner wrote in post #17650181
..

Just to add to the confusion the Q&A in B&H says the PL-C 52WII is not compatible with the 5000 f4 II, but then reviewers say they are using it with this lens.

And the even older 48mm drop in filter from the Pre - IS era also fits and works in the gen 1 IS models just fine and dandy.

As for the malfunctioning one, the polarizers due tend to make skies a lot bluer, but shouldn't make much of anything else bluer.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17743113
As for the malfunctioning one, the polarizers due tend to make skies a lot bluer, but shouldn't make much of anything else bluer.

Yea, and if you just took a pic of the sky with it you could easily get fooled into thinking it was working - I did for the first few minutes. But I need it to reduce reflections on water and foliage too. All the effects we are so familiar with when using polarizers. Plus the bluing of the sky was not the same as for a polarizer - you know a polarzier has that certain bluing/darkening/somet​hing to it.

In some ways the effect was not nasty and could have its uses - might actually be better than a polarizer for pics of birds against clear blue skies. But I'm not paying $250 for a variable cooling filter. Very weird and to be honest I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't experienced it myself. Definitely a major WTF moment.

ejenner wrote in post #17743124
Yea, and if you just took a pic of the sky with it you could easily get fooled into thinking it was working. But I need it to reduce reflections on water and foliage too. All the effects we are so familiar with when using polarizers. Plus the bluing of the sky was not the same as for a polarizer - you know a polarzier has that certain bluing/darkening/somet​hing to it. In some ways the effect was not nasty and could have its uses. But I'm not paying $250 for a cooling filter. Very weird and to be honest I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't experienced it myself.

that's really weird. i wonder if it was a return that someone had swapped the filter out of?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17743127
that's really weird. i wonder if it was a return that someone had swapped the filter out of?

Is seemed like the box might have been opened, but filter did not look tampered with - but it's possible I guess. This thing is it was still like a variable bluing filter - i.e. the effect did change as you rotated it, I don't know what filter would do that. Only even with the minimum effect the images were bluer than with no filter (well just the clear drop-in). So I can only assume some kind of manufacturing defect.

I must admit I was going to post a thread 'I got a bad polarizer', but since it was my first drop-in and I was jammed at work I didn't want to deal with the thread fallout at the time or posting pics etc... On this thread I wanted to give an update and don't really care if people believe I got a dud or not, but figured I'd mention it just in case. One thing I didn't think of at the time was putting a linear polarizer in front of it to see if the combo blocked all light, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have. Especially after getting the second one.

I'm not usually fussy about getting stuff that might have been tried or opened (my 7DII had ~200 shots on it guessing by the file numbers), but I wonder if someone had also returned it before me. On the return I specified 'not satisfied' and added 'possibly malfunctioning', so maybe someone will look at it.

ejenner wrote in post #17743091
I will definitely add some images using the polarizer when I have some - maybe with comparison shots if I can turn the polarizer without loosing a potential keeper. I may not put them on Flickr, but can certainly send you full-sized versions of whatever I post if you want to check out details. I will do the customary IQ check with the polarizer at some point - possibly this weekend.

No need to send me any, I can wait until I just 'seem them' at one point or another, it's not that big of a deal right now.
I really do appreciate the offer though, I may be selling my 400 f/2.8 at some point in the near future, I am considering it, only a little though.

Hey, I definitely believe that it's possible to get a bad 'anything' now days, even from a reputable company, and even a reputable company can have someone that may not follow protocol when it comes to a restocking of an item. I'm just glad that you were sharp enough to spot it, AND, strong enough to send it back, I might've kept it and just fixed the blue tint in Photoshop... heheheh
While I normally would only use a polarizer on a landscape, there are times when I need it on birds, so it has been a while since I have used one, so it's fine now, but it could definitely enhance a certain type shot.

Randy

A correction I thought I would mention: I don't know what I was thinking (or seeing), but the older drop-in is indeed the older more creamy white in color.

I'm posting a couple of shot here rather than the DO II sample thread because they were taken with the drop-in polarizer. I will also continue to post to the DOII sample thread. Randy, you can see some of my non-Flickr photos taken with this lens in that thread.

First was with a 2x TC (this pushes the IQ, especially when cropped which this one is), second with a 1.4x TC almost uncropped (I had to rotate 0.5deg).