Polarized Filter Who Use Them?

johnyeros · 06-20-2007, 12:48 PM

So, soon I'll be going on my first cruise to Jamaica and Grand Caymans... Now... I think I'll be taking my 16-45mm and tamron 70-300mm di.
I know I'll be taking a lot scenic pictures and I want to make sure I get some decent sky pictures..etc. Should I invest in a polar filter? How many people use these today? I know on my old camera I have one but with my this k100d, I have 4-5 different lens with various size filter ring so I think I'll just buy it for the 16-45mm..

barendvl · 06-20-2007, 12:58 PM

I've got a B+W Thin MRC 67mm polarizer for my 16-45. It did cost quite a bit for a polarizer but I was not going to compromise on its quality. So far, I did not use it alot (I only owned it for a week now). Tomorrow, I'll be going out to shoot some cityscapes and I do plan to use it alot. I'll report back after

*Peter Zack* · 06-20-2007, 01:04 PM

A polarizer is still one of the most used filters with a digital. Many of the other effects used in the film era with a filter can be duplicated in PP but not what a polarizer does. IMO Before you buy one consider getting one that fits your largest lens, then get stepping rings that will adapt the filter to fit some or all of your other lenses assuming the sizes aren't too dramaically different. If you have for example a lens that is 77mm and the rest are between 58 to 49mm then get a 58mm with rings and then a seperate one for the 77mm. You'd need too many stepping rings for that wide a size variation.

Chris S · 06-20-2007, 01:47 PM

I think a polarizer is a must have accessory. Unlike a lot of other filter effects, you really can't mimic the polarizing effect using software. Peter’s suggestion of getting one polarizer and stepping rings is a good idea. Another way to go is to invest in a Cokin polarizer and filter holder with adaptor rings for each lens. I use the same Cokin P series polarizer on all my lens which would otherwise require 4 different filter sizes.

*squarerigger* · 06-20-2007, 01:55 PM

It is one of two filters I own and carry about when taking photographs. However, I have to admit that most of the time I just plumb forget to use the filter - bad habit or just overwhelmed with all the other aspects of the shots to remember the filter

. Anyway, when I do remember it does make a difference. Purchase the best you can afford.

Mark Castleman · 06-20-2007, 01:58 PM

A polarizer (be sure to get a circular polarizer) is one of the handiest things you can take with you and, as was mentioned previously, is something that cannot be simulated (at least not easily) on the computer. I have also used the Cokin system for years and I always have my polarizer, a set of ND filters and some graduated ND filters with me all the time.

*Peter Zack* · 06-20-2007, 02:10 PM

I totally agree with the Cokin system and have 2 holders with polarizers and ND's etc. It is a great versatile setup which gets the most use. The only thing is for travel I find it a little cumbersome to cart around. The stepping rings and one filter (or 2 if you need an ND) are a little smaller and fewer parts in a travel bag. The other advantage is price. Cokin is very good stuff and it shows in the price. You'll need stepping rings from them as well with different lens sizes.

Either way you can't go wrong.

*khardur* · 06-20-2007, 03:27 PM

I'd recommend (graduated) ND filters more importantly for skies. I use my polarizer often, but more around water, or to reduce reflections/pump up color of foliage or other subjects, but I found myself using the ND filters more often when it concerns skies.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes polarizers make the sky look wonderful, sometimes it makes it look - well - odd - fake, or something not necessarily desirable. (in my opinion).

Either one isn't the perfect solution for every situation. And I agree too, buy the biggest size you can and get step-up rings to fit smaller diameter lenses, or get a Cokin set.

ChrisA · 06-20-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Castleman

A polarizer (be sure to get a circular polarizer)

Ah yes, the old "circular vs linear" debate.

Received wisdom says that CPs are needed to ensure that the AF and metering work with modern cameras.

Well, with the K10D, LPs work just fine.

I can't vouch personally for the K100D. But maybe worth a little investigation before assuming that received wisdom is completely accurate.

Arpe · 06-20-2007, 06:16 PM

Yes get a polariser.
A linear works with my *istDs too.

dndavis · 06-20-2007, 06:54 PM

I have the Singh-Ray 67mm LB Warming polarizer. It pretty well lives on my 16-45. I used it with a step-up ring on my Tamron 70-300. It only exacts about a 1.3 f-stop penalty.

johnyeros · 06-20-2007, 08:31 PM

wow guys, thanks for the quick reply =). I'll do some research on these suggestion!

stewart_photo · 06-20-2007, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisA

Ah yes, the old "circular vs linear" debate.

Received wisdom says that CPs are needed to ensure that the AF and metering work with modern cameras.

Well, with the K10D, LPs work just fine.

While it is nice to see that a linear polarizer works with your particular camera and lens setup, I have yet to see a single camera, lens, or filter manufacturer recommend linear polarizers for modern cameras. Instead, they all recommend circular polarizers, perhaps based on the notion that while a linear polarizer _MAY_ work without problems, a circular polarizer _WILL_ work. Given that, and the tiny difference in cost between the two types, it seems almost absurd to continue to recommend linear polarizers for modern cameras.

stewart

*Peter Zack* · 06-20-2007, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by stewart_photo

While it is nice to see that a linear polarizer works with your particular camera and lens setup, I have yet to see a single camera, lens, or filter manufacturer recommend linear polarizers for modern cameras. Instead, they all recommend circular polarizers, perhaps based on the notion that while a linear polarizer _MAY_ work without problems, a circular polarizer _WILL_ work. Given that, and the tiny difference in cost between the two types, it seems almost absurd to continue to recommend linear polarizers for modern cameras.

stewart

Absolutely right. You would also want a CPL for lenses that do not have IF or maybe you want to reduce the intensity of the polarizer in certain shots without removing the polarizer each time which is a slow process with a hood in place.

mattdm · 06-20-2007, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by stewart_photo

Given that, and the tiny difference in cost between the two types, it seems almost absurd to continue to recommend linear polarizers for modern cameras.

I haven't done a comparison myself, but as I understand it, linear polarizers inherently have a stronger effect.