17-55 landscape images w/+w/o cir polarizer

Hi,

I just bought some UV filters for my 70-300mm and my upcoming 17-55mm lens. Since it was cheap, I bought a 58mm circular polarizer as well but too tight on budget to purchase a 77mm for now.

I was just wondering if anyone has any comparison shots from their 17-55mm lens with and without a circular polarizer.

I would greatly appreciate it.

Are you asking how well this lens takes a CP? Are you asking what a CP does?

He is asking for two pictures of the same subject taken with and without a cpl for comparison.

Going to depend on mm used, subject, lighting, etc. You may not see any differences, except a slower shutter speed.

I wanted to see if the skies really do look better..or would a Nd filter be better?

Also, will circular polarizers help reduce reflections from glass (ie shooting aquariums, etc) or am I mixing this up with a different filter?

use google search w pictures you will see different in there.

joosay wrote in post #8397733
I wanted to see if the skies really do look better..or would a Nd filter be better?

Also, will circular polarizers help reduce reflections from glass (ie shooting aquariums, etc) or am I mixing this up with a different filter?

Sky...'It depends'...upon the angle of the shot, relative to the sun's position in the sky.

Reflections from glass...effectiveness.​..'it depends' upon the angle relative to the reflection.

joosay wrote in post #8397733
I wanted to see if the skies really do look better..or would a Nd filter be better?

Also, will circular polarizers help reduce reflections from glass (ie shooting aquariums, etc) or am I mixing this up with a different filter?

Yes, thats precisely what a circular polarizer is for...I dont have comparisons, but i do have expamples of shots i did with a 17-55 and circ polarizer

1168 x 1752

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: http://img.photobucket​.com …/Photography/IM​G_3657.jpg Click here to see our image rules.

IMO, a CPL filter is a must have piece on a day shooting, especially at the beach and/or anywhere else with cool cloud/green. I wouldn't get this cool cloud/sky w/o a CPL

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

A ND filter does not make for bluer skies. Proper exposure and being at the right place at the right time of the day do however.

ND filters are for being able to use faster shutter speeds while trying to prevent the sky from blowing out?

Even on a cloudy day there is better clarity with th CP on. It goes well with this lens.

I have the CP but don't have the comparison photo

just want to share the info with you.

CP is good to cut the reflection. So if you shot the photo where the area has a lot of reflection of it, it is a good filter. Since it cut the reflection, so it may make your photo underexpose depend on the density.

if you just the blue more on the sky, that you can do it simply with PP and no need to spend like 50 or 70$ for CP filter.

By the way, I am sure many of you will buy Hoya because the quality of this company is good. However, if you go on Ebay and search for Kenko, you will find the filter has the same quality as hoya for almost 40% off. Why? Because both Kenko and Hoya are the same company. Hoya is for oversea and kenko is used for local japan. There is no different expect the price.

joosay wrote in post #8398135
ND filters are for being able to use faster shutter speeds while trying to prevent the sky from blowing out?

Slower shutter speeds, faster underexposes the foreground.

Traumuh wrote in post #8398202
Slower shutter speeds, faster underexposes the foreground.

lol right, thats what i meant. i dont know what i was thinking by implying that faster shutter speed = more light coming in lol.