turkleten wrote in post #11454630
Yep, I considered this option a while ago but the vignetting.... that was my major concern.
Yeah, as I said, I can't use it on my 28mm lens - big - time vignetting!
anthony11 wrote in post #11455184Where did you find step-up rings that cheap?
Got some on Ebay and I bought a cheap "star" filter that came with a bunch of them. The only one that was more than a few dollars was the 72-77 ring. I got it at a local pro - shop, but it still wasn't more than something like $5 or so.
Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11454644^^ good idea unless you want to use the hood on a wide angle. I did this for a while as well
Yes, that's a problem, but hoods on UWA lenses are very shallow, so it's possible to get my fingers in and turn the CPL...but usually I just use a piece of cardboard or foam core and shade the subject if it's something like a flower in the sun - or use a cheap aftermarket screw-in hood.
Aleksihu wrote in post #11455377Isn't the filter picking up any flares or such, because it's exposed like that ?
Maybe I didn't make it clear...the filter is not at the front of the hood, it's at the rear - behind or between the appropriate step-up ring/rings.
Yep, but as I said, right now my largest front thread is 77mm. Anything larger would use a drop in (as far as I know). I had a 300mm f2.8 when my son was playing minor league baseball..(used it with a 1.4x extender quite often) - amazing lens, but too expensive to justify keeping without a real need for it. They all have drop in filters which are great, but only work with the "big guns". Those filters are (I believe) all the same size (52mm), so ideal for pro sports photographers that have several super telephotos. Then again, $160 isn't much when you are buying a filter for a $10,000 lens. 
melcat wrote in post #11455428For what it's worth, there should be plenty of used 49mm circular polarizers around, because the OM-4 had a semi-silvered mirror (just like an AF camera) and gave exposure errors with linear polarizers.
I'm still using an OM1 and an OM2 so I don't know if it has the same mirror as the OM4 - the polarizers I have for them are linear. And I am guessing that they are not as optically correct as the $180+ CPL I bought for my 300 and 70-200 zooms. And using a larger filter can't hurt (in fact it seems to give me better "fine tuning" since it's got a larger diameter. But mostly it's just a way of maximizing the use of an expensive filter.
I think the square holders would still need adapeters to fit each lens? But for a CPL, how would you rotate a square CPL? If holding it by hand in front of the lens, I already addressed that problem in the first post. I don't always use a tripod and I never do for "birding" - And with a long lens I need my left hand to held the lens - with a rotating hood I can do both with the left hand - steady the lens and rotate the CPL. It feels natural after using my left hand to hold and focus manual cameras for over 40 years..
argyle wrote in post #11455609OTOH, you also could have gotten a straight 49-77 step ring and forego three or four of your rings, which would simplify things somewhat. My personal preference is to have a polarizer in each diameter for lenses that I would commonly use a polarizer with...saves quite a bit of hassle and fumbling with multiple rings.
LOL...I actually do have other rings that make things more simple...I just stacked up a bunch to make the photo of them have a bit more impact. - In reality I can use one or two rings for each lens.
Ideally yes, having a separate size CPL for each lens would be ideal, but since I use mostly prime lenses, I have a lot of lenses (Canon EF, plus I do use a few of the Oly lenses when I can get by with taking the time to focus accurately using "live view" - almost always "still life" or posed shots with a tripod and cooperative subjects.
I have polarizing filters for each of the Oly Zuiko lenses, but they are linear, so are useless on a digital SLR. If I bought new CPL filters in each size and got the same high end B&W filters, I'd end up spending a ton of money - and there are some lenses I rarely actually need a CPL for - but this gives me the option if I do choose to use a CPL filter.
This 86mm hood seemed like a simple solution. It lets me use the 77mm filter on most lenses (other than wide angle - and I do have a few other CPL filters I use with those along with cheap screw in hoods which work fine. (Amazon sells "flower petal hoods that look jus tlike the bayonet hoods for almost every Canon lens - and the screw in rubber hoods are in every camera store).
My real need was for my 70-200 and 300 prime. I use them around the lake behind my house (tons of glare) for "birding" and the 70-200 lens' Canon hood makes using a CPL virtually impossible. The retractable hood on the 300 is a bit easier, but still, being able to turn the hood is a lot faster than turning the filter and then extending the hood. Things can change quickly with moving subjects.
The 86 mm hood was the answer for those two lenses (and for my 70-210 macro that only works in macro at the long end) -
So getting a few cheap rings just seemed like an easy and viable solution - and at $12.96 not a "risky" investment. (I actually prefer the metal hood to the flower petal plastic hoods Canon sends with the long "L" zoom lenses. The best solution is the drop in filters with the metal hoods on the even longer (and wider) lenses...The retractable hoods are convenient, but not great for using with a CPL.
I really DO wish I could find an even larger size so I would not get any vignetting with the 70-200 at the short end.
Peace,
D.
