Printable View
Hi guys,
I need to replace my polarizer (I lost the old one, don't ask...). I've used the standard B+W MRC for a couple of years now and I've been happy with it (only negative point was that, after a couple of years use, it had started feeling loose when I'd rotate it). Is it worth spending the extra $30 on the Kaesemann version? I don't necessarily need the better sealing, but I was reading somewhere that it actually has better IQ than the standard one.
Thanks,
Tony
I am not sure, but the descriptions on the Schneider optics page suggests a difference beyond the sealing. The second polishing to ensure parallel surfaces and the neutral quality of the filter seem to be the suggested difference, but that could just be marketing talk. Given that you are already talking about a serious investment in a filter, I would just go all in and pay for the highest grade.
Standard MRC:
The neutral gray color and plane parallel polarizer material guarantee optimal image results. High-quality optical glass ensures excellent pictorial quality.
Karesemann:
The
I don't have comparative data as I've only used theKäsemannCPL - but I can tell you that it's very nice! My logic was exactly as barba suggested - in for a penny, in for a pound. It's already an expensive filter (I'm not a fan of cheap filters on good lenses!), so I spent a little extra for their top of the line CPL, and got it in the slim version (since I keep B+W MRC UV filters on my lenses, and there are occasions when I don't have time to remove the UV and screw on the CPL, and just stack them instead).
+1 for the logic used above. I
Hi Tony:
The bottom line is that as with most things in our lives we get what we pay for. Sometimes we get snookered by slick advertising, but the vast majority of the time when you pay a higher price for a "like' product that claims higher quality you usually get just that. Higher quality. So it kind of comes down to what you want out of your photography, the best possible results with an A value item or is a B grade is good enough. There is
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\WAYNEA~1.DER\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01 \clip_filelist.xml" />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables />
<w:SnapToGridInCell />
<w:WrapTextWithPunct />
<w:UseAsianBreakRules />
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Bookman Old Style";
panose-1:2 5 6 4 5 5 5 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 0 0 0 159 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Bookman Old Style";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--><span style="font-size: x-small;"]<span style="font-family: 'Bookman Old Style';"]absolutely nothing wrong with going with either the A or B quality. It is just necessary for you to understand your decision and be happy with it.
Godspeed
Wayne
Hi guys,
Thanks for the replies. Basically, I was also thinking what you also pointed out: if I'm spending a fair amount on the filter anyway why not spend a bit more and get a better quality one. I think I'll get the Kaesemann.
Thanks again,
Tony
I don
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
They break auto-exposure? I thought auto focus?
Quote:
Originally Posted by clemmb
My understanding is that it only affects autofocus systems that use birefringent lenses between the secondary mirror and the AF sensor. I think that's only the old ones (or maybe also the cheap ones?). I haven't noticed an AF problem on my 5D2+LPL, but I haven't tested for it either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
I believe it can affect both. I'd phrase it that a linear polarizer will affect autoexposure, and might affect autofocus.
dSLRs use a 'half-silvered' reflex mirror which reflects some light up to the viewfinder and metering system, and transmits some light which is then reflected downwardto the AF systemby the secondary mirror. 'Half-silvered' isn't really correct - in most cameras, ~75% of the light is reflected up for the VF and metering, and ~25% is transmitted for AF. Linear polarization alters the ratio of light that is reflected by the reflex mirror, whereas circular polarization does not. That actually means that a linear polarizer is somewhat more polarizing, in a way, which is one reason Daniel prefers them. The variance in the ratio of reflection by the reflex mirror means a linear polarizer willcertainly affect metering (because the metering sensor will receive a greater or lesser amount of light at a given intensity, depending on the polarization angle), but it also means that the light reaching the AF system may be reduced to the point where the AF system cannot achieve a focus lock, depending on intensity and polarization angle.
Aha. Thanks for the correction and clarification, John. I may not have noticed it because I tend to use LPL only in bright light.