Circular Polarizing Filter for Cokin P-Series Holder

[terrib]

I have a Cokin P-Series Holder and am about ready to buy a circular polarizing filter. The instructor in a landscape class I took last week said that several years ago he had a Cokin brand polarizing filter and he got rid of it because it added a blue tint to his photos. Do any of you have more recent experience and could advise if the Cokin filter is ok or not? The Singh-Ray filter is twice the price and I'm having enough trouble justifying the Cokin price...

Or should I just skip the holder and go back to the screw on filters. I only have 2 sizes of lenses and it looks like I can get 2 Hoya filters for the price of the Cokin filter for the holder. (or I could do one with an adapter ring)

[Donald]

I have never heard of the Cokin circular polariser causing a blue tint. The Cokin ND filter range has, in my view, justifiably been noted to impart a cast. But if you are aware of that then it is just something that you have to take account of when doing white balance correction in post-processing. There will always be trade-offs. In return for not spending so much on the product, you have to deal with the colour cast issue.

However, as I say, I've never encountered that with the polariser. I only use it very rarely these days, but whenever I did , it was fine.

But let's hope others will come in with their experiences so that's it's not only my view that you have.

[krispix]

Nope.
I use a Cokin CPL a lot and can't say that I've had any problem with colour casts. I do get a slight blue cast with NDs, but I like a cool image anyway and even if I don't for a particular image it's easily sorted in PP.
If you decide to go the screw-in route (whether a single + Step-Up or two separate filters) you may have to get additional lens hood(s) as your standard hood(s) will probably not work.

[Mike Buckley]

Consider buying it from B&H just for the return policy: " If, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied with your purchase, you can return it to B&H within 30 days of purchase date." For the other details: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/Hel...rnExchange.jsp

I can vouch that they really do take stuff back. I purchased two digital projectors from them so I could evaluate both and return the one I didn't want. They took the one back that didn't meet my needs with no questions asked.

[terrib]

Thanks Donald and Chris for letting me know of your experience. Mike, that's a good point about the warranty. I have bought several things from them and have always had a good experience.

I'm straying off my own topic here, but since Chris mentioned hoods - that's one thing I didn't think about when I bought the Cokin holder system. I was drawn to the ability to use one filter for multiple size lenses but didn't really consider that I cannot use the hood. I never used a hood much before I got my 100-400 lens that came with one and it stays on all the time. When do you consider a hood necessary and when is it superfluous?

[Mike Buckley]

The only time a hood is superfluous is when you are taking the time to absolutely determine that no direct or bright reflected light that could cause even a small amount of flare or lack of contrast is entering the lens. I never take that time, so a hood is never superfluous for me; I never shoot without using one. Even when using a hood, I have experienced situations when I had to hold a hat (or better yet, ask my wife to hold it) near the end of the lens to eliminate flare.

[Brocken]

The extinction coefficient of a polarizing filter is wavelength dependent, which means that for any given filter, different proportions of red, green and blue may be transmitted through it, with the potential to cause noticeable colour cast.

Measurement of the extinction coefficient is one of the ways we can assess the 'goodness' of a polarizing filter, and happily for us some Polish enthusiasts have tested the optical properties of a range of 24 popular polarizers and tabulated them in order both of quality and value for money.

http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article...d_summary.html

[terrib]

thanks for the link, Christopher. I did notice that Cokin wasn't even one of the ones tested. hmmmm. Good info, though.