Wide polarizer ??

This must have been discussed earlier. However search proved to be that useful ..
So please advise ...

I am going to purchase a polarizer for my 70-200 mm tomorrow. Its 77 mm dia. I plan to get 24-70 L shortly which also is 77 mm dia. The salesman told me that for 24-70 I need a wide/thin polarizer while ordinary one will do on sigma.
Purpose of thin seems to prevent vingetting but since 20D is not a full frame camera, is this really going to be useful ?

If thin is required for 24-70 & works on 70-200 than I will get thin one. I dont mind paying extra bucks as long as I dont have to carry multiple filters.

Cheers

See this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=74770

While you don't need a thin filter for the 24-70, the Hoya UV-PL-CIR Ultra would be an excellent choice. When you get your next lens, an ultra-wide such as the 16-35 (along with your new 1Ds MkII body ), you will be glad you got the thinner filter.

Hehe, you're asking the right question, and you guessed the answer is... "no".
Save some extra bucks for something else. Why not an additional gradual ND?

I asked the same thing a week or so ago:

http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=72660

According to Scott Berger, there is no need to go with the thin (slim) variety using a 24-70 on your 20D. I think the only time you would have to go that route is if you are typically stacking filters. Since I would only be using the CP, I saved some money and bought the "ordinary" one for my 24-70 2.8L. The most important thing is to make sure you buy a circular polarizing filter and not a linear one.

Bob

Yes, I've got a normal polarizer on the 17-85 efs lense and it works fine unless I stacke it on top of the UV lens, then I get vignetting.

KAC