How much for a half decent polarizer

[DavidAllen]

Hi
Now I just love taking photos but know that I haven't really got 'the eye' so, since I'm never gonna go professional or win any comps I decided to avoid a larger sensor DLSR and go for a bridge camera. I got a Canon Powershot SX60 HS which has lots of possibilities for experimentation (which I love) but the quality of the photo is maybe not so good but for me it's good enough.
So now I'm after a polarizer filter & a quick look on Amazon shows me that I can spend anything from £5 to £100+. What would you say is the bottom end price for someone such as myself?

[Donald]

I'd turn that around and ask what is the most you can afford. With something like a polarising filter, cost and quality are connected. The more you spend, the better you'll get.

Even though you don't put yourself in the ranks of of the advanced enthusiast, the fact that you're on here means that you are enthusiastic, want to learn and want to make pictures that you'll enjoy.

So, I would very much encourage you to get as expensive a filter as you can afford. It will give you better results that you, I think, will be happier with. Some of those at the bottom end will be little more than coloured glass and leave you with poor results.

Go to a site such as WEX (http://www.wexphotographic.com/lens-filters/c2019) and view the range there. You will find what someone like you should be using.

[Black Pearl]

Go middle of the road price wise with something like this Hoya Pro-1 filter for £40.

Note you need an adapter to allow you to fit it.

[DavidAllen]

Thanks. I was considering a Hoya 67mm Pro-1 so I guess that should be OK?

[DavidAllen]

Ah, yes, that's what I was looking at. I've got an adaptor.

[Donald]

Just remember to post up some of the results on here!!

[Spam]

David, I'm a bit of a muppet when it comes to these things, so take this with a pinch of salt: I bought a CPL a couple of days after buying a DSLR last December, and although I've subsequently taken over 7000 pics I've only used the polarizer on one occasion. It caused as many problems as it solved: lopsided vignetting, only works at 90 degrees to the sun, messed up my light readings etc.

Mine is a cheap and nasty CPL (Kenko), and maybe some of those problems wouldn't occur with a better quality one, but I've also found that *some* of the benefits of a polarizer can be obtained simply by shooting in RAW. Other things, like lens flare, can be avoided by walking to another position, or using your hand or a hat to shade the lens.

Of course, none of the above will help if you want to photograph trout, or shoot through windows. Then you really should get a CPL.

[Manfred M]

David, I'm a bit of a muppet when it comes to these things, so take this with a pinch of salt: I bought a CPL a couple of days after buying a DSLR last December, and although I've subsequently taken over 7000 pics I've only used the polarizer on one occasion. It caused as many problems as it solved: lopsided vignetting, only works at 90 degrees to the sun, messed up my light readings etc.

Mine is a cheap and nasty CPL (Kenko), and maybe some of those problems wouldn't occur with a better quality one, but I've also found that *some* of the benefits of a polarizer can be obtained simply by shooting in RAW. Other things, like lens flare, can be avoided by walking to another position, or using your hand or a hat to shade the lens.

Of course, none of the above will help if you want to photograph trout, or shoot through windows. Then you really should get a CPL.

Your own knowledge and limitations are the problem, not necessarily the polaraizer's. The banding you mention comes from shooting the sky at too wide an angle.

When I shoot landscapes, even in overcast weather, I use a polarizer. The amount of glare that can be cut from leaves and grass is phenomenal and results in a much sharper image. Most landscapes are shot from a tripod, so the light drop off can easily be countered by shooting at a lower shutter speed.

If your metering was affected, you have a linear, not a cPol.

I virtually never go out and shoot nature shots without a polarizer on each of my lenses (too much of a bother to switch them out in the field, so I just leave them on the lens).

[Spam]

Your own knowledge and limitations are the problem, not necessarily the polaraizer's.

I agree 100% percent, Manfred, and don't get me started on the problems I've had with (cheap) neutral density filters. :-) My point is just that if you are an amateur like me and don't really know how to use these accessories, you either need to go to school on them in a big way, or find alternatives. Otherwise, you're just wasting your hard-earned cash.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi David,

I would ask what subjects you shoot?
What benefits do you expect the CPL to bring to those?

UPDATE, just seen your reply - a valid reason there

I have one, but it is rarely used because for what I commonly photograph, the benefits Manfred mentions do not apply - hence my first question to you.

Then, are you looking for one because you've been told it is great, or do you know that it will address specific issues such as reflections, that you are facing?

Bear in mind that most CPL will lose you 1.5 - 2 stops exposure, forcing a slowing of shutter speed and/or raising of ISO (your aperture options on a bridge camera are probably limited anyway, hence not mentioning that). Can you cope with these aspects for the subjects you shoot?

I have the Hoya Pro-1 also and would recommend it as a good middle of the road filter.


4 posts in five years and three of those in this thread!
I feel I should welcome you back.

Cheers, Dave

[DavidAllen]

David, I'm a bit of a muppet when it comes to these things, so take this with a pinch of salt: I bought a CPL a couple of days after buying a DSLR last December, and although I've subsequently taken over 7000 pics I've only used the polarizer on one occasion. It caused as many problems as it solved: lopsided vignetting, only works at 90 degrees to the sun, messed up my light readings etc.

Mine is a cheap and nasty CPL (Kenko), and maybe some of those problems wouldn't occur with a better quality one, but I've also found that *some* of the benefits of a polarizer can be obtained simply by shooting in RAW. Other things, like lens flare, can be avoided by walking to another position, or using your hand or a hat to shade the lens.

Of course, none of the above will help if you want to photograph trout, or shoot through windows. Then you really should get a CPL.

I want a CPL mainly to reduce glare from water. I don't know of another method that would help but thanks for your input.

[Mike Buckley]

My continued impression is that there is so much misinformation about polarizers that I just have to try to clarify some of the stuff brought up in the thread:

My point is just that if you are an amateur like me and don't really know how to use these accessories, you either need to go to school on them in a big way, or find alternatives.

Great point! However, it doesn't apply only to accessories; it applies to the use of camera bodies and lenses every bit as much. I suspect that the reason your point is so good is that far too many people view accessories as "only" accessories, which leads to taking relatively less time to understanding how to benefit from their advantages and avoid their disadvantages.

lopsided vignetting

It's worth confirming that that has has already correctly addressed by Manfred.

only works at 90 degrees to the sun

Simply not true. A polarizer will affect the most change when it is 90 degrees to the sun and when the sun is at the lowest point in the sky. It will gradually have less effect in other situations, but as Manfred already mentioned, it will have at least some effect in most outdoor situations. The only time a polarizer will affect no change in that context is when the sun is directly in front of or behind the photographer.

messed up my light readings

Also already correctly addressed my Manfred, though it's possible that you accidentally did something else wrong that affected your metering. Though I'm a reasonably advanced photographer, I still accidentally and unknowingly change a camera setting from time to time that causes metering problems created only by operator error.

*some* of the benefits of a polarizer can be obtained simply by shooting in RAW.

I have been using a polarizer since 1983 and I've been shooting nothing but RAW files for almost 15 years. Even so, I can't think of a single benefit of using a polarizer that can be more easily obtained by choosing one file format over another.

lens flare, can be avoided by walking to another position, or using your hand or a hat to shade the lens.

The coating put on the polarizer will minimize flare exactly the same way as when coating is placed on any other kind of filter. However, a polarizer in and of itself is not designed to minimize or eliminate lens flare. It will never do that, just as none of the other filters will ever do that.

I want a CPL mainly to reduce glare from water. I don't know of another method that would help

Though it's theoretically possible to reduce or even eliminate unwanted glare in water during post-processing, using a polarizer is by far the easiest and fastest method of making that happen.

Clarification about reflections and glare in water: When most people refer to reflections in water they are referring to a mirror-like image of a source object positioned above the water. Glare is a mirror-like reflection of a light source, almost always the sun. The polarizer will not reduce or eliminate the reflection but it will reduce or eliminate the glare. It will be possible to eliminate some of the glare but it may not be possible to eliminate all of the glare. That's because the polarizer eliminates the glare that exists only on one plane; glare produced on other planes within the same scene will not be eliminated.

Clarification about the affect of a polarizer on metal: When the surface being photographed is shiny metal, a polarizer will not reduce or eliminate glare. Don't confuse that with a metal surface that is painted, such as the exterior of a car; the polarizer will eliminate glare and reflections on painted metal. However, as explained above, the polarizer will affect only one plane at a time, so when the painted metal is curved, again as in the case of a car, it will be impossible to eliminate all of the reflections on a curved surface.

[DanK]

I too would recommend a midlevel filter. I've used Hoyas, but I have recently bought some Marumis, which are good and usually a bit cheaper. Harder to find, however.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Spam]

I virtually never go out and shoot nature shots without a polarizer on each of my lenses (too much of a bother to switch them out in the field, so I just leave them on the lens).

Manfred, your and Mike's very useful and informative posts persuaded me that I should stop being a numpty and give the filter another try. While doing so I remembered another thing that had dissuaded me from using it: the lens cap won't clip to the CPL! Is it just because its a cheap version? If not, how do you guys get around that, especially if you're using it for prolonged shoots in areas where there's dust/spray/mist?

[Mike Buckley]

The issue with your lens cap might be due to a filter that has a thin profile. That kind of profile is generally more expensive than the same optics with a standard profile and is too thin to accommodate a snap-on lens cap. I have only one filter that has a thin profile (for use with a wide-angle lens so it doesn't produce a vignette) and it came with a rubber slip-on cap. Perhaps you can find one that is the right size, but I've never looked for one and don't know if they're regularly sold separately from a filter.

It's actually not a problem when your filter becomes dusty; typically way too much is overdone about that. For the same reason that you can throw a chain link fence close to the lens so out of focus that it is not seen in the image, all dust on the filter will also similarly be thrown out of focus.

Certainly spray and mist can be calamitous to the quality of the image but it won't hurt the filter. When you're photographing in those situations, perhaps gerry rig a plastic bag and a rubber band to put over the end of the lens. Or put up with taking the filter on and off so you can attach the lens cap. Better yet, have an assistant protect you and your equipment by holding an umbrella over you.

[Manfred M]

I also have the same experience as Mike with regard to lens caps and polarizing filters. My very expensive B+W Käsemann MRC Low Profile does not have enough of a lip for my standard lens caps and in fact shipped with its own lens cap, should I need to use one. I rarely have lens caps on while I am out shooting and only put them back on when I transport the lenses. My cheap regular Tiffen filters are fine with the camera lens caps. So this is definitely not a price issue.

One of the reasons I got the Käsemann design is that the filter is sealed against moisture, this is specific to that particular line of filters and I am not aware of any other filters that have that specific design feature. Polarizers have two separate elements and moisture can get in between the two layers, especially in humid an moist environments, and I have definitely had one polarizer get ruined by moisture getting into it.

I find that a lens hood does a reasonable job in keeping moisture off the mounted filter and as Mike has recommended, other means , including a plastic bag or other water proof cover works fine. Shooting in conditions where I can't keep the camera and lens dry are something I stay out of because it is difficult to get a good shot with a filter / front element of a lens that is obscured by moisture.

[Mike Buckley]

Polarizers have two separate elements and moisture can get in between the two layers, especially in humid an moist environments, and I have definitely had one polarizer get ruined by moisture getting into it.

That makes me wonder if the same thing recently happened to the polarizer I most often use, though I haven't been in a particular moist or humid environment. I suddenly noticed that certain images captured in bright light had a characteristic resembling flare in a small area near the center of the image if something in that area was bright, such as some bright flowers. When I inspected the polarizer, I noticed a small area near the center that had some sort of distortion that was impervious to being cleaned. It never occurred to me until seeing Manfred's post that the distortion could have been in between the layers (not realizing at the time that a plolarizer even has layers). Buying a new polarizer solved the problem.

EDIT: I just now remembered that every once in awhile I temporarily put that very polarizer in my shirt pocket as a matter of convenience rather than taking the time to put it in its typical storage area attached to the outside of my camera bag. When I do that especially when I'm hiking, my body heat sometimes causes moisture to form on the polarizer. I'm beginning to think that moisture got in between the layers Manfred explained. Note to self: no longer put a polarizer in your shirt pocket.

[Tringa]

Only one thing I'll add, David.

I do not know your Canon camera but if the extending part of the lens retracts entirely into the outer fixed part then please be very careful about buying and using any filter.

If the rim of the filter is a little too thick (and 'too thick' means only a few millimetres) then the filter can jam when the lens retracts fully. Some years ago I thought I had ruined my bridge camera by using a filter that was just a tad to thick.

Dave

[DavidAllen]

Only one thing I'll add, David.

I do not know your Canon camera but if the extending part of the lens retracts entirely into the outer fixed part then please be very careful about buying and using any filter.

If the rim of the filter is a little too thick (and 'too thick' means only a few millimetres) then the filter can jam when the lens retracts fully. Some years ago I thought I had ruined my bridge camera by using a filter that was just a tad to thick.

Dave

Yes, good advice. Exactly the same thing happened to a Panasonic bridge camera I had a while ago. Luckily it was fixable for a charge of £60 So I'm well aware of potential problems. However, SX60 HS is safe - the Canon filter adaptor itself has a larger diameter than would retract.

[rpcrowe]

Here is a thought... As far as the problems with exposure... My first experience with a polarizing filter was with a linear polarizer in the early 1960's... This polarizer caused excessive exposure problems...

Most polarizers sold today are circular polarizers however I have seen el-cheapo polarizers sold on eBay which I am sure are linear models. If I were you, I would ensure that my polarizer was a circular model, not linear...