I use a tiffen but find that the corners of some photos are a darker blue sky then the rest of the frame? Is this just the nature of polarization or will a better circ polarizer like a B+W resolve it?
picworx Goldmember 1,147 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jun 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada More info | Feb 26, 2017 19:36 | #1 I use a tiffen but find that the corners of some photos are a darker blue sky then the rest of the frame? Is this just the nature of polarization or will a better circ polarizer like a B+W resolve it?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SkipD Cream of the Crop 20,476 posts Likes: 165 Joined Dec 2002 Location: Southeastern WI, USA More info | Feb 26, 2017 19:58 | #2 I suspect that the images with the darker corners were probably made with a shorter focal length (wider angle) lens than the others. Skip Douglas
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bassat "I am still in my underwear." 8,075 posts Likes: 2742 Joined Oct 2015 More info Post edited over 6 years ago by Bassat. | Feb 26, 2017 19:58 | #3 Permanent banWhat focal length is the lens you have it mounted on? The wider the focal length, the more variation you get across the frame from CPL filters. Polarizers work best at a certain angle to the sun. Wide lenses cover a wider (duh!) range of angles to the sun.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
picworx THREAD STARTER Goldmember 1,147 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jun 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada More info Post edited over 6 years ago by picworx. | the 24-105 f4 and the 17-40 f4.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bassat "I am still in my underwear." 8,075 posts Likes: 2742 Joined Oct 2015 More info | Feb 26, 2017 20:09 | #5 Permanent banI have a set of 67mm, and a set of 77mm Tiffen filters. (.3, .6, .9, 1.2 ND, & CPL) All of them accept lens caps. I've compared my 77mm Tiffen CPL to my 77mm B&W CPL. The difference most certainly is not worth the cost. Keep in mind that I don't get paid for my photos, and I don't use my CPLs often enough to worry about the minor difference. As usual, YMMV.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RDKirk Adorama says I'm "packed." More info | Feb 27, 2017 12:14 | #6 So has Tiffen stepped up their game, or what? A few years ago, Tiffen filters for still cameras were considered a joke. TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Wilt Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1] More info | Tiffen web site discloses little to any attention to the topic of coatings. If you search long enough, you will find that some Tiffens have NO COATING (which results in contrast loss) and a very few filters have coatings. "Q: How many anti-reflective layers are there in the coatings on the Tiffen 58 CP circular polarizer and precisely what kind of layers are they? You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.php
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RDKirk Adorama says I'm "packed." More info | Feb 27, 2017 12:55 | #8 Wilt wrote in post #18286742 Tiffen web site discloses little to any attention to the topic of coatings. If you search long enough, you will find that some Tiffens have NO COATING (which results in contrast loss) and a very few filters have coatings. "Q: How many anti-reflective layers are there in the coatings on the Tiffen 58 CP circular polarizer and precisely what kind of layers are they? With regard to multicoating, I think the nature of polarizers eliminates a need for multicoating, but they ought to be single-coated. TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Wilt Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1] More info Post edited over 6 years ago by Wilt. | Feb 27, 2017 12:58 | #9 RDKirk wrote in post #18286767 With regard to multicoating, I think the nature of polarizers eliminates a need for multicoating, but they ought to be single-coated. Single coatings and double coatings are characteristically coatings which lose 8-10% of the light, whereas 'multicoatings' lose about 6-7%, and 'super multicoatings' only list 0.6-0.8% of the light...so for all intents and purposes, to me a single/double coating in effect is no coating at all! You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.php
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RDKirk Adorama says I'm "packed." More info | Feb 27, 2017 13:54 | #10 Wilt wrote in post #18286770 Single coatings and double coatings are characteristically coatings which lose 8-10% of the light, whereas 'multicoatings' lose about 6-7%, and 'super multicoatings' only list 0.6-0.8% of the light...so for all intents and purposes, to me a single/double coating in effect is no coating at all! ![]() That large loss of light is because of multiple reflections within the filter, each one "leaking" light. TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Marcsaa 1268 guests, 126 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||