my 70-200 f/2.8 and Circular Polarizer hate eachother!

Hey everyone, I have one quick question/rant. Ok usually I have been ordering Sunpak filters from Japan. And I have been getting great results when I use them, hence why I havn't switched to Hoya or higher grade filters. But recently when I bought my 70-200, and popped on my 77mm Circular Polarizer they just hate eachother! But my Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 has no issue with that same filter.

Here is an example of the hatred.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

If your worried about protecting your glass from scratches, why don't you just buy a high quality UV Haze filter?

On more expensive glass (i.e. L), I would definitely recommend using high quality filters (usually much better optics and ring material/construction)​; B+W, HOYA Pro, and Heliopan all come to mind.

What good is all that expensive glass if the first thing the light passes through is of lower quality than everything after it? You went all out on the glass itself, don't cheap out on the filter you put in the front of it.

I use a B+W MRC CPL on my 70-200L f/2.8 IS without any issues whatsoever.

Hit up hvstar.net for good prices on higher quality filters.

Let Sunpak make your aux flashes, not your filters.

I use Kenko Pro 1's with no problems (Not on a 70-200mm though.)
Hoya and Kenko own into the same company and the filters are identical.

If you like to save cash then go with Kenko.

I use hoya CP 77mm thread on my L's (17-40 and 24-70) and on my 100-400 with no problem like shown

I only use the cheaper hoya one - about 70USD - not the 100+$ one.

I dont use it much on the 100-400 as i find its too dark at 5.6 anyways letalone forcing 1 or whatever extra stops of darkness with the CP

Hoya/Rodenstock/B+W/He​liopan are all the filters you should be looking into. You'll spend a decent amount, but you get good quality filters. And 77 will work with other L's like the 16-35.

1/40th versus 1/160th.

You need to remember that using a CPL can lose you up to two full stops of light (which is what your EXIF is showing).

What Paul said, 1/40 is slow for 200 mm, hand held. effective magnification of 320mm on 1.6 crop body.

cc10d wrote in post #5858278
What Paul said, 1/40 is slow for 200 mm, hand held. effective magnification of 320mm on 1.6 crop body.

Field of view (aka 'crop factor') as opposed to actual magnification, but I think the point cc10d is trying to get across is that 1/320th would be the nominal shutter-speed for 200mm.

Bump up that ISO, good sir!

As has been pointed out, the CPL loses light, so you must use a slower shutter speed (or larger aperture) to counterbalance that loss. If you use 1/40 on a 200mm lens hand held, that is far far less (in fact, 10x less!) forgiving than 1/40 on a 20mm lens.

The filter does not hate the lens, your shaking hand hates the slow shutter speed!!!

Try the same test but, instead of hand-holding the camera, put it on a sturdy tripod. You will probably see the sharpness you expect.

You could have some flare or other abberations with cheap filters, but you'd see that with most lenses.

I dont think "Shakey" hands were a factor since it was on a monopod? But I can gauarantee that the results will be similar with the Sunpak, I was just curious and tyring to confirm that cheaper filter glass will have results like this.

I would have the same results with UV filter over the 70-200. It just has that massive amount of gaussian blur. I dont think what was displayed was motion blur.

Even a monopod wouldn't ensure total stability (without IS) with that shutter speed at 200mm. I think perhaps someone is in denial!

lol i guess I am. So I am going to the same test at the same exposure We shall see what happends.

Alright here is test #2.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE