Polarizer Help!

[zpierce]

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

 

[Pan Korop]

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.

 

[shoturtle]

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.

 

[shoturtle]

This is a good read,
Polarizing filters test - Introduction - Lenstip.com

This was highly rated
Amazon.com: marumi dhg super cpl, 62mm: Electronics

 

[~tc~]

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.

 

[shoturtle]

There are not as many option for linear polarizer

linear polarizer 62mm - Adorama.com

 

[~tc~]

Yeah, PDAF doesn't work through them, so pretty much rules linear polarizers out for the entire DSLR world

 

[docfox]

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

 

[shoturtle]

They are made in china, with lower quality glass. They work like most of the ebay ones.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

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)

 

[VasManI]

I'm happy with my $30-some Hoya CPL filter off eBay (or Amazon).

 

[pjohngren]

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.

 

[tomas]

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

 

[ksn]

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?

 

[SMaturin]

Is there any reason not to leave one on permanently except when you need glare for some reason?

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.

 

[ksn]

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?

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.

 

[linkedit]

if you intend to use it a lot, spend the money and get a good one

Amazon.com: B+W 62mm Circular Polarizer Slim MRC Filter: Electronics

 

[ksn]

How would that compare to something like this? B&W 62mm TOP LINEAR POLARIZER Filter 62 mm Pol 65075291 | eBay

A few people earlier mentioned that Linear polarizers should be just fine with MFTs.

 

[SMaturin]

How would that compare to something like this? B&W 62mm TOP LINEAR POLARIZER Filter 62 mm Pol 65075291 | eBay

A few people earlier mentioned that Linear polarizers should be just fine with MFTs.

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

 

[linkedit]

How would that compare to something like this? B&W 62mm TOP LINEAR POLARIZER Filter 62 mm Pol 65075291 | eBay

A few people earlier mentioned that Linear polarizers should be just fine with MFTs.

you're right. a circular polarizer is not needed for mft's. so this one would be fine.