Lens sizes agaga - filtering systems?

catspaw

I know there are different choices out there -- and I also know it's best to aim for the better quality than to waste $$ buying middling quality now and upgrading later.

* Sigma 10-20mm, 77 ring has a polarizer that fits. (btw, anyone know where to get replacement hoods? mine's at the bottom of Delicate Arch)
* Nikor 18-200mm, 72 ring, I *had* a convertor ring for the polarizer which is now AWOL. Worked very well.

I also have a hand held 1-stop gradual ND filter. a 2-stop is in the future once Picture line has them in. I suppose they can go with a 'system' but I have no idea.... They're Cokins. Or rather the one I have is, the planned second one will be too unless other recommendations... ?

also:
* Nikor fixed 50mm for landscapes. Uses a 52 ring.
* Nikor fixed 60mm for macros and portraits. Takes a 62 ring.

Only two more purchases (sue me, I'm an action/sports photographer as well as artistic *and* landscapes....).

* Nikor 70-300mm, uses a 67 mm filter size.
* Sigma 8mm fisheye -- no filters, uses some sort of 'gel' system and in truth, I suspect I won't NEED any filters with this at all, so skip it.

so
52, 62, 67, 72, and 77

how many ring sizes down can you go for filters?? Obviously the 77 on the 52 would be silly. Although I could get a ring for the 67 to work with the 77 polarizer. And then a ring for the 52 to work with a 62 polarizer that I'd buy. Sensible? help???

Is there something better out there? And if I put $$ into a GOOD polarizer, any suggestions? I know Adam's recent blog raved about the Singh Ray Vari-N-Duo and while I can admire in awe, I also just nod my head in cluelessness.

I do NOT need toys I don't need. but I do find I'll be needing that polarizer in high action shots a lot, since the over exposure is getting annoying. I've all of next year/season to perfect it and I'd prefer to not have to do it in post processing. (sure, YOU try full manual mode with galloping horses.....). Course the polarizer used for 67 and 72mm is exposed to dirt and sand and rain and wind and other ungood stuff. Which means that I'm willing to keep the HOYA 77mm circular polarizer for the horse events and outdoor elements (10 hours of sand and wind ....).

1. can you use a step down ring for 10mm? or is there a max on those?
2. best/better polarizers for the smaller lenses?
3. is there a good 'system' for all of this and/or the square Cokin ND filters?

*exhale* *cookie if you read through all that*

(eta: hmm. 77-67 rings exist, but haven't spotted a 62-52 yet....)
(eta2: nevermind, found one locally)

Photoskipper

I have been facing the similar problem since the first I bought the SLR 30 years ago.
It started with 48 mm (very very old day) then 52 as main stream. Later have the 62, 68 then 72 and finally 77 for the Canon L range.

I finally designed to stay on the 77 mm range if possible. So, I got my 24-105 as kit lens then have the 70-200 F2.8 and finally the 17-40 also 77 mm.

I gave up the 16-35 F2.8 and went for the 17-40 F4 due to filter size. The bigger the filter, the more expensive and more difficult to bring along.

It is not only because the cost, it is a matter of carrying too many filters on a trip. One set of 77 mm can suit all the lens seems ideal for me. Now I can invest for the better quality filters and starting to collect more different filters.

Robinivich

Well I read through all that, do I get a cookie? It'd be nice since I'm feeling the pain on this one too, my story is that I started at 67mm (17-85), then I got a 58mm (sigma 70-300), then a 52 (nifty 50), now a 72mm (sigma 150 macro), and a 77mm (10-22mm). I still haven't got the courage (or the recovered bank account) to put a good quality polarizer on the 10-22, and it's so wide I'll need a slim 77mm and no less. I have a 67mm polarizer, though I'm not thrilled with the quality. Most of the lenses I lust after now are 77mm, 82mm, 58mm, and 62mm. I'm thinking that the most useful size is going to end up 77mm, since only a very few expensive lenses go bigger, though that number seems to keep getting bigger.

As far as adapters go, if you search B&H or Adorama's inventories they sell an awful lot of step up and step down rings. I have a 72-52mm step down ring, and a 52mm reversing ring that I got from camerafilters.com back in the spring, but I can't seem to load up their website, though google cached it Oct 31. Assuming this is just some temporary hiccup, they have an absolutely massive selection of sizes.

Quality of these adapters is acceptable, rough compared to B+Ws machined brass, but functional (I use them to support my 50mm off the end of my 150mm macro, so more weight than filters typically need to hold)

The brand I've heard recomended most often is B+W, specifically their MRC coated polarizers, they also have slim, and kaesemann variants, which means they're environmentally coated against high humidity. Unfortunately you can also ID them by their price tag.

ziggy53

Super-wide zooms and primes are not necessarily good candidates for polarizers because they can produce dark "zones" instead of making the whole sky darker.

"Greatest common denominator" and buying filters that fit your largest size and then "necking down" with rings is the best strategy.

Carefully assess your needs to make sure that you don't buy filters to fit lenses that you probably don't need to filter.

catspaw

Robinivich wrote:

Well I read through all that, do I get a cookie? It'd be nice since I'm feeling the pain on this one too, my story is that I started at 67mm (17-85), then I got a 58mm (sigma 70-300), then a 52 (nifty 50), now a 72mm (sigma 150 macro), and a 77mm (10-22mm). I still haven't got the courage (or the recovered bank account) to put a good quality polarizer on the 10-22, and it's so wide I'll need a slim 77mm and no less. I have a 67mm polarizer, though I'm not thrilled with the quality. Most of the lenses I lust after now are 77mm, 82mm, 58mm, and 62mm. I'm thinking that the most useful size is going to end up 77mm, since only a very few expensive lenses go bigger, though that number seems to keep getting bigger.

cookie! you can get step-down adaptor rings for 77 to 72 as well as 77 to 67. that might let you ditch the 67 polarizer that you aren't as fond of.

at least a 58 and 62 can use a step down ring. ditto for 82 and 77, although the 82 couldn't go down too long. Ah, lens lust. It never takes into accounts filters :PPP

The brand I've heard recomended most often is B+W, specifically their MRC coated polarizers, they also have slim, and kaesemann variants, which means they're environmentally coated against high humidity. Unfortunately you can also ID them by their price tag.

Excellent to know, thank you!!

catspaw

ziggy53 wrote:

Super-wide zooms and primes are not necessarily good candidates for polarizers because they can produce dark "zones" instead of making the whole sky darker.

hmmm. good to know this. I'll have to take a look at the 10-20mm shots to see if any dark zones are showing up in there. The fixed 60mm doesn't need a polarizer, but the fixed 20mm does, as that is specifically for landscapes (and hiking, since it's feather light and if I'm going to take only one lens 6 miles and 3000 miles up....). Any other suggestions for polarizers on a fixed 20mm then???

Carefully assess your needs to make sure that you don't buy filters to fit lenses that you probably don't need to filter.

yup, plus no need to buy a filter I'll never touch again. Now, if I could stop misplacing the stepdown rings!

ziggy53

catspaw wrote:

... Any other suggestions for polarizers on a fixed 20mm then??? ...

Leah,

The problem is related to the FOV and the angle to the sun.

A polarizer works to darken the sky by filtering rays of light out of sync with the orientation of the polarizer itself. The problem occurs with lenses with a wide FOV has light rays coming at extremely different angles, just because the scene is so broad.

A 10mm focal length on the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM, for instance, yields a FOV of 102 degrees. This means that parts of the sky, or sometimes water as well, can be considerably different angles with respect to their angle to the sun.

By the 20mm the angles are much more similar and the polarizing sky effect should be more similar as well.

A pretty good explanation and example is here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml

catspaw

ziggy53 wrote:

Leah,

The problem is related.....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml

Awesome, thank you!!!

Robinivich

ziggy53 wrote:

A pretty good explanation and example is here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml

Absolutely awesome link ziggy! And I completely second his remarks about polarized sunglasses, I have some, and swear by them .

catspaw

Robinivich wrote:

Absolutely awesome link ziggy! And I completely second his remarks about polarized sunglasses, I have some, and swear by them .

I couldn't figure out why my normal peers through the lens looked so dull until I figured out my sunglasses were polarized. d'oh