Round polarizing filter choice.

[Dave A]

Tomorrow my plan is to buy a polarizing filter to fit the two lenses I use the most (67mm). I'm a little confused by the different kinds of round polarizing filters and the terms used to describe them. I'm thinking I will just get the best I can afford based on price. I want to pick it up in person so I have narrowed it down to the Hoya 67MM Pro-1D CPOL DMC Filter at $114.00

Is there any reason this would not be a good choice?

Dave

[Dave Humphries]

I think that's the one I chose and I have no complaints Dave.

btw, if you have any lenses with a smaller filter thread, you can get rings to stup up from them to the 67mm of the filter.

If the diameter difference is large, say your other lens is 58mm, you may need 2 or three step-up rings to bridge the gap.

One disadvantage would be if the smaller lens is W/A, this may give vignetting - but then a CPL on a W/A lens doesn't work well for sky darkening anyway, although it may suffice for other uses such as killing reflections on water, glass, (painted) metal panels, etc.

[Dave A]

Thanks Dave for that.

Dave

[Shadowman]

I have one of those step up rings as well, saves a bit of money when you have lenses with different diameters.

[Manfred M]

The one downside to Hoya (and a lot of other middle to lower priced filters) is that they use aluminum mounts. The problem with aluminum is that this metal tends to bind to other surfaces the moment the paint has worn on the threads (and that really happens extremely quickly). I personally prefer brass as a mount material. This is especially important if your lens has metal rather than plastic filter threads. If the manufacturer doesn't mention the material used, you can assume it is aluminum.

Also, if you are looking at using it on a wide angle lens, a low profile filter will reduce risk of vignetting. A word of caution though, the thinner profile also means that there is less protection and less area to grip when adjusting the filter. With my low profile, I tend to get more fingerprints on it because this.

Multi-coating for sure, You don't want light loss due to reflection off the filter glass.

While I agree with Dave about the banding issues when shooting the sky with a wide angle lens and a polarizer, I find that I use it to kill reflections more than to increase the saturation of the sky. It will remove reflections from any non-metallic surface but the one "surface" most landscape photographers fight with reflections on (and never seem to notice) is from leaves (and this includes grass). Start shooting with a polarizer and you will find that your trees and leaves look better simply because you have eliminated the reflections on these.

One other point on using polarizers, Do not over-tighten! Otherwise you'll be back on this site asking how to remove it from your lens.

[Dave A]

Thank you Manfred for that information. I didn't realize that a $114.00 POL filter was still considered a middle to low end filter. This is an expensive hobby
Dave

[Polar01]

Dave I myself use B+W filters which I find excellent, I use it with a set-up ring 67>77 as the filter is actually 77mm. This allows me to use it both on the 67mm and my 77mm lenses, a number of people use the low profile ones but I found I do not need the low profile ones. By using a regular profile one and my big hands I find it easier to remove as I do not keep it on my lens all the time. As Manfred has stated and I repeat Do not over-tighten!, this filter or any other filter, this one especially as it is two pieces and one of them turns freely and it is not the one that you want to turn to remove.
I am going to add a link to a place I use to purchase most of my filters, I have found them very helpful with excellent service. Give them a call, to find out what may be best for you. They are in the U.S. in New Hampshire so not sales tax, shipping by US Post for a small item some where around $5.50 US and Canada Customs who knows it depends on the mood of the inspector sometimes I have to pay and sometimes I don't.

http://www.2filter.com/shopsite_sc/s...tml/index.html

Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

Thank you Manfred for that information. I didn't realize that a $114.00 POL filter was still considered a middle to low end filter. This is an expensive hobby
Dave

I looked up my filter on the website Allan buys from;

http://www.2filter.com/shopsite_sc/s...RC_Filter.html

By the way; "high end" brands would include B+W, Heliopan and Singh-Ray, plus a few others.

$144.72US. (about $190 Cdn). Henry's and Vistek have the non-Kasesmann version (i.e. less expensive) listing at around $270 Cdn

I find the markup in Canada on accessories is right over the top and like Allan, buy in the US where even with the exchange rate, I still save a bundle. My favourite mail order supplier is the well regarded New York City bricks & mortar camera store B&H, who have an excellent web based store. Adorama (also in NYC) is also very reputable, but I have not ordered from them yet.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com

http://www.adorama.com/


They are slightly less expensive than Allan's source and shipping to Canada is "free" on orders over $99US. They use Purolator and can take care of customs / duties / taxes for you if you select that option (I do). If I order on the weekend, I'll have the parts in hand on Thursday. The only issue with B&H is that it is run by observant Jews, so the web store does not accept orders on the Sabbath or on Jewish religious holidays.

One word of warning - if you order from the USA and use any of the courier companies (especially UPS and FedEx), they nail you with brokerage fees which can be downright robbery. If you use the right package (and it is offered by the seller) you can do okay. Shipping USPS (Post Office) avoids the problem, as does the brokerage service offered by B&H.

[Mike Buckley]

Once the filter is properly mounted on the lens (not overly tightened as already mentioned), always rotate the movable part in the direction that would tighten the part that is intended not to move. It won't tighten it, so don't worry about that. However, if you instead rotate the movable part in the direction that would loosen the filter and ultimately remove it from the lens, that can happen. I know because I've accidentally done it.

it may suffice for other uses such as killing reflections on...metal panels

It won't work on metal that has nothing on the surface. However, it will work if, as an example, the metal is painted. In that situation, you're using the filter when photographing paint rather than metal.

[Dave Humphries]

It won't work on metal that has nothing on the surface. However, it will work if, as an example, the metal is painted. In that situation, you're using the filter when photographing paint rather than metal.

Yeah, must admit I was thinking cars and vans, etc., so painted.

Thanks for clarifying that Mike, I have slightly amended my post above.

Cheers, Dave

[Dave A]

Thank you everyone for your information, very helpful. I just ordered the B+W 67mm F-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer MRC Filter. It is brass.

Dave

[Manfred M]

Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer MRC Filter.

The Kaesemann design is unique in that it is resistant to mould growth. Polarizers are typically made by sandwiching a piece of polarizing material between to pieces of optical glass, If you spend time in tropical environments, mould growth can start inside this package and ruin the filter. The Kaesemann design seals these elements to prevent even hint of moisture getting in between the filter elements.

You typically don't need this design for the type of weather we get in Canada. I got mine because I was / still am spending a fair bit of time in tropical parts of the world where this risk is real.

[Dave A]

Manfred, I rented a house in Cape Coral Florida for two weeks this coming Jan/Feb so although not long enough to be affected by tropical conditions I guess you could say I have my bases covered.

Dave