Polarizer Help!

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by zpierce, Apr 22, 2011.

  1. zpierce

    zpierce Super Moderator

    661
    Sep 26, 2010
    Minneapolis, MN
    Zach
    Can someone recommend a decent polarizer that doesn't cost a fortune? I want a 62mm for my 14-140. I've spent all night reading customer reviews on various models and have no idea what to choose. Seems like one should look for multi-coated? Or is that only if you're really picky? Seems like every model gets some raves and some complaints about flare or what have you.

    I had a cheaper one for my 52mm lenses and I never figured out how to use it to good effect, maybe it was just the filter, but I had trouble seeing much difference through the viewfinder to adjust it properly and the few pics I recently tried had very uneven blue skies. Is this a normal issue or do I just need some practice or better equipment? Any advice would be much appreciated!

    Thanks,
    Zach
     
  2. Pan Korop

    Pan Korop Mu-43 Veteran

    479
    Mar 31, 2011
    Phare Ouest
    Wide angle + polarizer will often give uneven sky density, so it seems normal assuming the filter is clean.
    An old (linear) non multicoated or even uncoated can be quite good IF you use a lens hood: on a scenery, max polarization occurs when the sun hits the lens sideways which is when the hood is most helpful.
     
  3. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    You get what you pay for. B+W is one of the best out there. But if you are looking to save go with a hoya digital pro or a hmc.
     
  4. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Multi-coated is an absolute must. Glass is quite reflective without the coatings, and the difference in light transmission can be HUGE.

    Linear will be fine with the CDAF of our cameras, and usually cheaper,but harder to find.
     
  5. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
  6. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Yeah, PDAF doesn't work through them, so pretty much rules linear polarizers out for the entire DSLR world
     
  7. docfox

    docfox Mu-43 Regular

    35
    Mar 26, 2011
    Hatfield, PA
    inexpensive 62mm polarizer

    Dear Zach,

    Take a look at Tiger Direct - they advertise item YYI1-GB1637 for $9.99 - it is a 62mm circular polarizer by Vivitar (Sakar manufactured). They seem to have some good prices on (select sizes and types) of filters as well as memory cards. I recently bought two 52mm multicoated glass filters from them (same brand), a UV for $3.99 and a circular polarizer for $6.99. These seem to be of very nice quality and I have no idea how they can sell them so cheaply.


    Good luck,

    George
     
  8. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    They are made in china, with lower quality glass. They work like most of the ebay ones.
     
  9. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    I must have got lucky with my two e-bay CPL purcheases ... one's a Hoya and one's a 'DOI',Japan. both work great and for £3 each I'm happy. (Just 52 & 55mm, not big)
     
  10. VasManI

    VasManI Mu-43 Regular

    93
    Jan 21, 2011
    I'm happy with my $30-some Hoya CPL filter off eBay (or Amazon).
     
  11. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    It doesn't have to be a circular polarizer. This is not phase detection on the autofocus but contrast detection. It can be a linear polarizar. You get a much better linear polarizer for the same price as a circular polarizer. I have a 52mm and a 46mm Linear Pol and they work very well - in fact better than the circulars in that they don't alter the color. I always hated polarizers because they made the greens look weird to me - unnatural. Not so with the linears.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. tomas

    tomas Mu-43 Regular

    I use B+H UV MC and Polarizing filters exclusively. B+H filters are the way to go. With any Hoya or Tiffin filter I've ever used I've always experienced some loss of sharpness. You get what you pay for
     
  13. ksn

    ksn Mu-43 Veteran

    266
    Mar 6, 2011
    Sorry to bump an old thread, but is a Polarizer on minimum close enough to the original that it can be left on permanently?

    Edit: Just realized minimum isn't even close to "off" on most of the filters. Is there any reason not to leave one on permanently except when you need glare for some reason?
     
  14. SMaturin

    SMaturin Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Apr 30, 2011
    New York's Backyard
    1. They will reduce light transmission some, thus making your lens a little slower for given ambient light. Not a problem in broad daylight, but likely an issue in less well-lit circumstances. I have never seen one that wasn't a bit darker than a standard UV/skylight filter, and some are quite dark.

    2. They usually cost much more than a UV filter, if what you want to do is protect the front of the lens. Good multicoated polarizers are not cheap, so why use it as a lens protector?

    3. There may be some surprising inadvertent effects, such as darkening the safety glass of cars, or polarized sunglasses, or other forms of polarized glass. Use this creatively, rather than by accident.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. ksn

    ksn Mu-43 Veteran

    266
    Mar 6, 2011
    Thanks, I wanted to get a UV filter for my 14-140mm because it wasn't a cheap lens, but I would like to get a polarizer to play around with. I've been doing some reading, but haven't actually used one before. I just thought that maybe if I spent a bit more on a polarizer, I wouldn't need the UV filter at all. There's a B+W Linear Polarizer on ebay for $42, which doesn't seem too bad at all.
     
  16. linkedit

    linkedit Mu-43 Top Veteran

    649
    Aug 6, 2010
    New Jersey, USA
    • Like Like x 1
  17. ksn

    ksn Mu-43 Veteran

    266
    Mar 6, 2011
  18. SMaturin

    SMaturin Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Apr 30, 2011
    New York's Backyard
    I have not looked in detail at the various models, but B&W tends to have the highest reputation and highest cost. Check out the article on polarizers referenced earlier in the thread. Very scientific study about polarizer filters done in Poland. Maybe some of those models are available here today, as well.

    Yes, a linear polarizer is just fine with the m43 cameras, and likely cheaper than a circular polarizer. CPols are required for DSLR cameras, which use a different method for achieving autofocus (phase detection, vs contrast detection in mirrorless m43 cameras), where linear polarization will interfere. Complex physics that I only sort of understand. But that article may shed some light.


    -Steve
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. linkedit

    linkedit Mu-43 Top Veteran

    649
    Aug 6, 2010
    New Jersey, USA
    • Like Like x 1