Polarizing Filter

[GrillMouster]

A cheap filter might not just be darker, but not as optically clear. It may also be more subject to flare and ghosting.

Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, a lens + filter combination will only give an image as good as its poorest element of glass.

 

[jann1033]

maybe if you live where there are nice skies you can get away without one but not where i live. usually i see a dramatic difference. and at least the preset lightroom/photoshop ones i have ( ie freebies) don't do nearly as nice a job as the real thing imo.
i have 3, a tiffen and don't know the other 2 brands( camera is downstairs) and don't really notice huge difference brand wise. i use step up rings so they fit all my lenses.
i really think my favorite filter brand is cokin just cause they are so easy to use and exchange. usually with my grad.nd i just hold it up before the lens, don't even put the filter holder on. i usually use it on a tripod with a timer though which would be different with a cp but if i ever lose my cps i 'll probably get cokin or singh ray ( similar but more expensive cokin types,) cokin also makes a more expensive glass for some filters.
an interesting article about using cokin type filters http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1108/dw1108-1.html

 

[YesDear]

You can find some great deals on B&W filters on ebay of all places. They come from China but are the real thing.

I got one for the largest lens I would use on then got stepdown rings for the smaller ones. That way I could use one filter and several lens. I am cheap that way.

 

[WDWFigment]

I did the same thing: bought one for my largest lens on eBay and bought a step-down for my other lens that would likely need it. Saved quite a bit with that method.

I think post processing to replicate a polarizing filter is too extreme as far as altering the image (at least, the methods that actually work), and I'd rather just use a polarizer than spend all that time messing with it in post.

 

[annnewjerz]

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


This article is interesting and explains some of your questions

Thanks---it actually helped a lot!!

I still use one on occasion - but I've noticed I don't need it as much with DSLRs. Still, there are times when I'm just used to it from film days, and it feels right to spin that little ring to blue in the skies (circ polarizer obviously).

You're fine with any of the main brands - the ones you named are all fine...one you didn't mention is Tiffen, who should also be considered on the same level. I've got Hoya, Tiffen, and B&W filters myself...no Cokins though. I'd consider them all of equal quality and build.

I'm glad you mentioned Tiffen. They seemed dramatically less expensive than some of the 77mm filters I was looking at on B&H's site and I thought that maybe they were an inferior brand and decided to steer clear of them. Honestly, I'm not sure I'd use the CP enough to make spending $100+++ on one worthwhile, so maybe I'll give the Tiffen a try!!

(like you I also prefer to limit the amount of time I spend post-processing).

Glad to see there is someone else out there who feels the same! With as many pictures as I'll (hopefully) be coming back with, having to make a bluer sky in every one of them would be a royal PITA.

I consider a polarizer an important accessory and almost always have one on the lens as long as there is enough light. There is a lot more glare and reflection out there than we realize, and a polarizer is about the only thing that will remove the glare. The result is more saturation and more contrast.

Hoya, Tiffen, B&W, you get what you pay for (if you are lucky). Multicoated is helpful, but I consider anything that says "digital" to be marketing hype. Hoya's new HD sounds interesting although I rarely bounce steel balls off my filters. If it really works and takes up less light it might be worth the $$$.

Circular is about all we will find these days but if the price seems too low it might be a linear polarizer.

Contrast is something I find myself boosting a lot of PP (probably too much so) so maybe I'll be able to move away from that habit if I start using a CP filter. Strangely enough, I did see quite a few "linear" filters that came up in my searches which is why I had to Google to see what the difference was and which I needed. The prices have been crazy across the board---some 77mm CP filters for $200+++ and some for $35, seems that there is no rhyme or reason.

You can find some great deals on B&W filters on ebay of all places. They come from China but are the real thing.

I got one for the largest lens I would use on then got stepdown rings for the smaller ones. That way I could use one filter and several lens. I am cheap that way.

That's the plan! I made the mistake of getting a 72mm ND filter a while ago because it fit my biggest thread size at the time, not even thinking about the fact that maybe one day I'd get a 77mm size and either get a new filter or have some vignetting if I used the 72mm.

AND---I think you may be China's biggest individual consumer from the US. Between the tripod, the filters and the remote---if I need to know where to find something, I can always assume your answer will be "Get it from China"

I'd rather just use a polarizer than spend all that time messing with it in post.

I stongly agree. Enjoying PP is something I have not learned to do yet. I want to take the picture and have them be ready for sharing/printing/etc. without having to worry about PP. If only life were that easy.

maybe if you live where there are nice skies you can get away without one but not where i live.

Not in NJ either, surprisingly enough. The sky could look bright blue (or bright compared to what I'm used to) and in the pictures it just doesn't look nearly as vibrant as it did when I saw it with my eyes. Either that, or I get a typical cloudy day where every picture I take outside looks like the sky is completely blown and there is little I can do to recover any color that might have existed. Oy vey!

 

[My2Girls66]

Ann, check amazon prices for the Tiffens. They are pretty good.

 

[ColleenG]

When DH got my camera, the sales lady talked him into a $50 UV filter for each lens. She told him they were great for protecting the lens, which I am all for, but $50 a filter? Should I just return them? Or can I get a cheaper filter to prevent scratching the lens?

Does UV filtering affect the image in any way?

Thanks!

 

[ukcatfan]

Does it affect it? YES!!!! It makes it worse. It is one more piece of glass and that can reduce the image quality. It also increases the chance of outside light causing problems. Sorry to say, but he got scammed. Take them back. While they do offer some protection from being scratched, a hood is better for truly protecting the lens. The reason is that the filter will just transfer any shock from an impact into the lens where that shock can cause internal damage. The hood will take the force of an impact and break therefore reducing the shock to the internal parts of the lens. If you really are paranoid, then use both, but be aware that even that is not foolproof. The important thing is to be careful with your gear.

 

[CAbryan]

You hear differing opinions on this subject just a search of the web shows people that love them and ones that don't. Personally I don't just as UK said, why would I put some filter with cheaper glass on the front of an expensive lens?

Just be mindful not to bump into things and when cleaning it off maybe use a brush first to get any of the harder dirt particles that may scratch off.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

This is one of the classic debates in photography. You certainly don't need a UV filter but you may want one. They are like a minor insurance policy.

If their favor, a UV filter protects your front lens element from scratches and in rare circumstances from impacts. Assuming that you use a lens hood (you should) and take reasonably good care of your lenses, it is very unlikely that a UV filter will be needed, but you never no for sure.

The complaint about UV filters is that they harm image quality. Just as their protective qualities are usually exaggerated, so is their impact on image quality. In 99% of the pictures you'll take, you won't be able to tell any difference whatsoever. Where they hurt you is when you have light shining into your lens (take a picture of someone standing by a lamp is an example). In those cases, the flat surface of the filter can reflect some of that light giving you a ghost image of the light someplace else in the picture. The best UV filters are multi-coated to reduce this problem.

They also cause the problems that all filters cause. On wide angle lenses shot at maximum aperture, they can increase vignetting (darkening of the corners). Because they sit at the end of the lens, they are more susceptible to stray light causing lens flare or hazing.

My view is that they provide very little protective value (unless you spend a lot of time in harsh environments like the beach). If you get a good one, they will very rarely hurt your images. If you are a nervous type and constantly clean your lenses, a UV filter can be worth it for the piece of mind. If you aren't, I don't think that they are worth the money.

Whichever route you choose to go, you must accept totally. If you use one, learn to quote stories of horrific damage averted by UV filters. Mock those that don't use them. Make snide comments about how people without them can never hope to resell their lenses. If you opt not to use one, learn to quote stories of images ruined by UV filters. Mock those that use them. Make snide comments about how people with them care more about their equipment than their images. It is important as an Internet savvy photographer that you take an extreme position on this issue.

 

[ssanders79]

I use then on all my lenses. I just bought some used ones from B&H. I cannot tell a difference in image quality.

 

[GoofyontheHiSeas]

I have one but the only time I use it is while shooting at the beach.

 

[Chikabowa]

I UV filter every single one of my lenses. I'm hard on equipment and definitely need the extra protection. I can't tell you how many times I've shot a wedding where I've had a hood on my 70-200 and something came inside the hood to bump the actual glass.

As long as you purchase high-quality filters (most of mine are in the $50 range) with good glass, you shouldn't see any sort of image problems. I sure don't.

And this what happens when a 2 year old gets close to your camera bag (on my shoulder). Could have been my $500 50mm f1.4, but instead I ate the cost of the filter and the lens was fine.

 

[jann1033]

i don't use them either ( well the "either" goes with some of the previous posters only). i use a hood when i can/remember but try to be careful. i did see a online test and the tiffen uv filters they tested made a very discernible change in the image quality for the worse(vs the hoya and i think b&w was the other brand)...it shocked me and the tester ....
i've only dropped a lens once and it hit the mount end, the element was fine but the mount was a mess, even more so after trying to be helpful hubby gouged it up by trying to re-bend it using nail clippers
KEH is fixing it for $145 btw vs canon's rip off of $185 just to look at it..take that canon

 

[YesDear]

I like Susan use them. I have had three filters broken over the years that have saved lens glass.

I agree with Mark, however, that you will tend to fall into one camp or the other and constantly have to defend your decision.

Aren't you glad you asked the question?

 

[ukcatfan]

Whichever route you choose to go, you must accept totally. If you use one, learn to quote stories of horrific damage averted by UV filters. Mock those that don't use them. Make snide comments about how people without them can never hope to resell their lenses. If you opt not to use one, learn to quote stories of images ruined by UV filters. Mock those that use them. Make snide comments about how people with them care more about their equipment than their images. It is important as an Internet savvy photographer that you take an extreme position on this issue.

What would we do without you Mark!

 

[ColleenG]

I might keep one of them to use for places like the beach. I have already warned my kiddos that if they even THINK of touching my new camera they will encounter a wrath like no other!

The ones DH got are Promaster. Are they decent? I would hope so for $50.

Thanks for sharing both sides of the coin.

 

[bob100]

Whichever route you choose to go, you must accept totally. If you use one, learn to quote stories of horrific damage averted by UV filters. Mock those that don't use them. Make snide comments about how people without them can never hope to resell their lenses. If you opt not to use one, learn to quote stories of images ruined by UV filters. Mock those that use them. Make snide comments about how people with them care more about their equipment than their images. It is important as an Internet savvy photographer that you take an extreme position on this issue.

you crack me up!
(I don't use a UV filter but if I had a thousand $ lens maybe I would reconsider)

 

[ukcatfan]

I might keep one of them to use for places like the beach. I have already warned my kiddos that if they even THINK of touching my new camera they will encounter a wrath like no other!

The ones DH got are Promaster. Are they decent? I would hope so for $50.

Thanks for sharing both sides of the coin.

I have never heard of them. It looks like they go for about $9-14 online. If it were me, I would return them all and buy one where the quality has been proven. Also, make sure that it is multi coated to reduce glare. I would also make sure you have a plastic hood for all your lenses. The metal and rubber ones still work, but do not protect as well.

BTW, did you ever get to check your shutter actuations to make sure that they did not sell you a used camera?

 

[ColleenG]

I have never heard of them. It looks like they go for about $9-14 online. If it were me, I would return them all and buy one where the quality has been proven. Also, make sure that it is multi coated to reduce glare. I would also make sure you have a plastic hood for all your lenses. The metal and rubber ones still work, but do not protect as well.

BTW, did you ever get to check your shutter actuations to make sure that they did not sell you a used camera?

Thanks UK. I did try to check the shutter actuations with Photo Mechanic, but it didn't come up with any thing for it. Jann had mentioned another program that I am going to try tonight. I think I will save my self the $100 on the 2 filters and return them.