slim circular polarizer on a non-wide angle lens?

rosselliot

I have the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 24-105 F/4 IS L and I'd like to get a circular polarizer. I'd like to be ablt to use it on both (of course) so can I just get the slim one and use it on both with good success?


thanks!

- RE

David_S85

Can't speak for the Sigma, but I know that I can't fully screw my thin Hoya Pro 1 circular polarizer onto my Canon 10-22 for fear that it will crash into the front element of the lens at most focal length settings.

At super wide focals, like 10 to roughly 17mm (in cropped cameras), no polarizer will work well for sky shots. The field of view covers just too much area. The polarization won't be even close to uniform. In other words -- looks bad. Not the fault of the filter; the physics of the sky and optics are to blame. If you can get one to fit the 10-20 without damage, you can always use a polarizer to reduce glare on water of reflection shots. Then crop accordingly.

In general, a thin polarizer should work exactly the same as a regular thickness version, no matter what the lens. Thin is heldful at medium wide angles to help reduce vignetting.

What I decided to do a while ago was to buy all my filters in the 77mm size. With my smaller diameter lenses I use a step up ring to 77. Chances of vignetting are reduced with the step up, as is the requirement to buy expensive filters for every lens size.

claudermilk

Like David says, a polarizer on a UWA lens usually just gets you ugly results. I've had a few shots where it worked ok, but mostly you get a patch of dark sky, then the rest is lighter.

It looks like from the pictures of that lens a filter will mount fine (it looks to have the front element even more recessed than my Tokina). Both are 77mm filter threads, so the same filter will work on both your lenses. I wonder if you can get away with a standard CPL--I know at 12mm there is no vignetting on the Canon 1.6 crop bodies.

dancorder

I've got a very cheap not-thin polarizer on my 10-20 and it doesn't seem to vignette at all. Of course if you want to mount multiple filters you may still want a thin one.

Pezpix

David_S85 wrote:

Can't speak for the Sigma, but I know that I can't fully screw my thin Hoya Pro 1 circular polarizer onto my Canon 10-22 for fear that it will crash into the front element of the lens at most focal length settings.

At super wide focals, like 10 to roughly 17mm (in cropped cameras), no polarizer will work well for sky shots. The field of view covers just too much area. The polarization won't be even close to uniform. In other words -- looks bad. Not the fault of the filter; the physics of the sky and optics are to blame. If you can get one to fit the 10-20 without damage, you can always use a polarizer to reduce glare on water of reflection shots. Then crop accordingly.

In general, a thin polarizer should work exactly the same as a regular thickness version, no matter what the lens. Thin is heldful at medium wide angles to help reduce vignetting.

What I decided to do a while ago was to buy all my filters in the 77mm size. With my smaller diameter lenses I use a step up ring to 77. Chances of vignetting are reduced with the step up, as is the requirement to buy expensive filters for every lens size.

Yup, same here. Unfortunately, wide angles are where the use of polarization suffers the worst. Usually, I am reluctant to use my polarizer with anything wider than 24-28mm as the sky will lose nearly all of its uniform look.

On the bright side, the new Canon 16-35mm has a 82mm front element, so at least I wont have to worry about shedding gobs of money on a super-expensive 82mm polarizer on it

As for slims... one thing I do hate... most have no threads in the front of them and sometimes even have weird caps that have to fit onto them. YMMV.

David_S85

My Hoya Pro 1 does have threads on the front. Not many threads mind you, but they're there. A lens cap attaches to the front but its a dicey situation.

The wider I go with my 10-22, the darker the sky looks. Just a quality of that lens I think. Perhaps all wides are that way. Don't really need a filter.

In reality, the sky is naturally polarized when the sun is out, though your brain tends to dismiss that fact when you look up. A polarizer only enhances that effect.

Khaos

I use a B+W thin circular polarizer on my 10-22. It screws in fine with no issues. The drawback is that thins don't allow for the lens cap to attach so they give you this dinky rubber one to go along with it that never stays on.

I've had no vignetting issues.

You will see the uniformity issue, but with practice and some PS work you can work it to your advantage. The shot below shows the polarizer working dead center, but that playas along well with the clouds to the side and the helps to also accentuate the lake. Like everything in photography, you just have to keep shooting and learning how to use your gear,

Khaos

David_S85 wrote:

In reality, the sky is naturally polarized when the sun is out, though your brain tends to dismiss that fact when you look up. A polarizer only enhances that effect.

The brain doesn't ignore it. It's more that are eyes aren't that adept at seeing it. If the brain ignored it, we wouldn't see sunsets and sunrises. Those angles make it easier for us to see the polarization.

The spectrum that the light refracts in our atmosphere makes us see blue, but other animals will see closer to a violet color. So blue for us, and purple for them. It's all down to what each animal has evolved into regarding sight.