Polarizer filter

gus

Just wondering how many use a polerizer filter. With my limited knowledge of cameras i have been comparing my shots with those on the net that are taken with a polerizer. There is one or made to fit my C-5050 with an CLA adapter.

Do they offer the magic touch ? Worthwhile ?

Humungus....

cmr164

Humungus wrote:

Just wondering how many use a polerizer filter. With my limited knowledge of cameras i have been comparing my shots with those on the net that are taken with a polerizer. There is one or made to fit my C-5050 with an CLA adapter.

Do they offer the magic touch ? Worthwhile ?

Humungus....

Sometimes... They are like magic for making skies and clouds dramatic or for either accentuating or dispelling the glare from water. Not much use inside. Absolutely worthwhile. (IMHO)

fish

Mark, thanks for reminding me that this site is gonna end up costing me a LOT of money :cry


I need a circular polarizer for my 17-40 zoom, which takes a 77mm.
Is there much difference between B+W and Heliopan?
Do I need to worry about vignetting with either of them?
Is it a hassle to work them with the EW-83E lens hood?

cmr164

fish wrote:

I need a circular polarizer for my 17-40 zoom, which takes a 77mm.
Is there much difference between B+W and Heliopan?

Shouldn't be.

fish wrote:

Do I need to worry about vignetting with either of them?
Is it a hassle to work them with the EW-83E lens hood?

I have used a circular polariser on my 17-35 and do not recall any vignetting issues. However with the superwides the only real answer has to come from either trying it or finding someone with the same lens.

With a digital it is easy to try. Go to your local photo gear shop and ask to try. Take some shots of a plain wall or ceiling and examine the reslt.

fish

Thanks for the info, Charles. I dropped by SJ Camera today and they had Hoya and B+W in stock. Hoya was about $60 and the B+W was $180! I asked the salesdrone what the difference was and he said the B+W was much better glass and much smoother to use, while the Hoya was "junk made in Thailand or Indonesia or some place like that." So, I pulled both out of the packages and the B+W felt like it had sand in it. Clearly defective. I told the guy that the Hoya felt much better, and he looks at me like I had a horn growing out of my forehead, so I tell him to try it it. He does, and says "feels good to me." Then I hand him the Hoya and he says "feels the same to me." Gee...did he get fired from Kmart or something? Sheesh. What a maroon. Needless to say, I left empty-handed.

Just checked bhphoto.com and Heliopans run from $115 to $250 and B+Ws run from $110 to $170. What's the difference? Eek.

Heliopan Slim - $115
Heliopan Kaesemann - $250 (what's Kaesemann?)
Heliopan SH-PMC - $163
B+W Slim - $110
B+W MRC - $155
B+W Kaesemann - $168

:confused

John Macdonald

Circular Polarizers Rock.
-


And fish, that guy must have been having a bad day of retailitis.
Or he needs a different job.

You can't go wrong with the B+W.
The quality difference will show up in a few places.
For one thing, the B+W uses brass for the bezels. Doesn't shrink or grow due to temperature change as much as the aluminum bezels found in the cheaper filters, the threads are usually quite nice too, it's rare to see on of those gall up in a lens and get stuck.
The Glass is nicer too. High quality glass makes a difference.
The coatings are going to be of higher quality on the more expensive filter.
That's really important since you are adding a total of four new surfaces of glass to your lens with a circular polarizer. Lots of new possibilities for flare and reflection there, you are well served to go with the best you can get for that reason alone.

Operating it under a hood?
I usually end up just flicking the hood off, adjusting the filter, and flipping it back on again.
Takes a few seconds, no big deal.

patch29

fish wrote:

Just checked bhphoto.com and Heliopans run from $115 to $250 and B+Ws run from $110 to $170. What's the difference? Eek.

Heliopan Slim - $115
Heliopan Kaesemann - $250 (what's Kaesemann?)
Heliopan SH-PMC - $163
B+W Slim - $110
B+W MRC - $155
B+W Kaesemann - $168

:confused

I would go with a slim if you are using a wide angle lens. It will be a little less easier to handle.

I would go with the B+W over the Hoya and not spend the $$ on the Heliopan, very doubtful you will see a difference between the two.

They must have had a defective filter, maybe someone took it to the beach and dropped it, cleaned it and returned it? Could it have been silica gel that came out of a broken pouch?

B+W Kaesemann Polarizer


This high-quality polarizer is crafted from select polarizer foils and specially prepared optical glass. This neutral polarizer is edge sealed and therefore, it is durable under extreme climatic conditions. The use of this filter is recommended for the most stringent imaging requirements, especially with fast telephoto lenses and apochromatic lenses. Available in linear or circular. Filter factor is 2.3 to 2.8.

source

Heliopan glass filters are made exclusively with glass from Schott (Zeiss) the world's finest optical glass supplier.

Tom Vervaeke

Good Data
I too suffered over whether to get cheapy polarizers or good ones. Same for the UV filters I put over all my glass. I'm a Nikon user so my choices are many. However, I've begun to spend the extra money and get Nikon UV glass. Luckily most of my good glass is all 77mm and the rest are 62 and 52. So I only need 3 polarizers.

However, even UV filters are expensive. Is is worth it to pay the extra $$ for good brands or not?

I mean, if you're dropping over $1K on a lens, is it worth it to spend $100+ on a polarizer?

Am now reading several books on filters and may venture into even more different styles. Would be great to know whether I 'm wasting money on better filters (soft, colored, etc..)

Tv

DoctorIt

fish wrote:

Do I need to worry about vignetting with either of them?

I was wondering about this too... can't we get away with "cheaper" filters on our digital SLRs since we lose some periphery from the smaller chip over the full frame 35mm? In other words, the cheaper glass is probably only cheaper at the edges - where the vignetting occurs. Am I way off base here?

cmr164

DoctorIt wrote:

I was wondering about this too... can't we get away with "cheaper" filters on our digital SLRs since we lose some periphery from the smaller chip over the full frame 35mm? In other words, the cheaper glass is probably only cheaper at the edges - where the vignetting occurs. Am I way off base here?

Filters try to be optically neutral and thus are not really noted for having better centers than edges.

DoctorIt

cmr164 wrote:

Filters try to be optically neutral and thus are not really noted for having better centers than edges.

A ha, that makes total sense now that I think about it. Thanks!