Polarizer Filters

In fact, that the search is not available on TDP, i can't find any normal information about CPL filters, so i created another topic.


First of all, i have several basic questions:


Bryan mentioned in its reviews, that both slim and normal version of polarizer filters in certain conditions (with wide angle) shows unevenness. There is written, that this effect was noticed with ~ 20.8 mm focal length.


Will i see this with my 24-105 f/4 lens?


And in the start, i though that one version of polarizer (slim or normal) is designed to prevent this unevenness. But this is not truth?


1. What is real purpose (advantages and drawbacks) of slim version and normal version of CPL filters? Is it worth to pay more for slim?


I know one drawback, that slim version has its own cap which is not so good to use.


2. I know, that there is normal type of filter, slim and the third, a little bit thicker than slim, which has small front thread for normal lens cap. And this is the most expensive. So.. i think if the slim version is better (depends on benefits), then it is better to pay a little more and get thicker slim version but with front thread. Am i right?


3. Which manufacturer? I read, that in the world is only 3 manufacturer and they produce all filters to resellers, which sells filters with its own name.


In my country (Lithuania, Europe) i see only Rodenstock and Hoya. I read about Hoya, that it is hard to clean. Is it truth? If it is truth, then Hoya do not fits to me, because one of my wishes is to have filter, which i can clean easily (not like front lens element). Rodenstock advertises, that they have really good water/dirt repellent layer.


[img]/photography_gear1/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/0361.WaterSC.jpg[/img]


About B+W filters i do not see anything in my country. I tryed to find any technical information about B+W (and other filters) filters, but all i can find is only advertise on the e-shops and marketing papers.


For now i think about Rodenstock HR Super MC
But i read some information, that the Rodenstock has a little sharpness loss and B+W is the best. What could you advice?


All information about Circular Polarizer Filter (and personal advices) would be appreciated.

I use the Hoya HD uv and polarising filters, they

- Normal filters have threads on the front to attach more filters. But they can be up to 4mm thick, that adds vignetting.


- Slim filters get rid of the threads on the front. So you screw them into the lens and can't get any more on. Thinner means less vignetting, but no threads means no more filters, and not even a lenscap fits (hence they give you a new cap)


- Slim filters with front threads i've never heard of, but presumably they're harder to make with enough thread on the front for lenscaps and more filters, but you'd get less vignetting than a normal.


.


You have the 24-105? What camera do you have?


I don't have one, but the vignetting diagram on FF looks about as bad as the efs 15-85 that i have. It vignetts bad enough as it is, adding my normal sized polariser vignettes even worse.


.


The 'unevenness' Bryan talks about is a property of a polariser. When you point it at a blue sky, it is darkest exactly perpendicular to the sun, and gets gradually brighter until it's brightest parallel to the sun. When you go wide and ultra-wide angle, there's so much view in the photo that you can see the darkest bit and lighter bits on either side. Not the end of the world, but noticable enough.


Here's a shot at 15mm on my 7D, so about the same as 24mm on Full Frame. If you've got a 1D or using a 24-105 on 7D or lower, it won't look this bad. Note the dark sky (and nice colours on the trees) centre of shot, and the lighter sky on the edges. No way around this, at these wide angles (actually, i can think of one, but it would be damn expensive and slow setup).


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/900x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/0247.IMG_5F00_1946s.JPG[/img]


.


As for brands, no idea. My CPL is what i got in Hong Kong cheap last time I was there. Fujiyama I think it says on the side (not near me so can't check). Not the easiest to clean, but no real complaints. I haven't done any direct comparisons, but can't see much IQ difference to no-filter. If i buy a new 67mm one for my 70-300L, i'll take a bit more time researching quality ones first though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamelot

Will i see this with my 24-105 f/4 lens?

---

If you use it on a FF camera, you'll see a little bit of uneven polarization at 24mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamelot

i though that one version of polarizer (slim or normal) is designed to prevent this unevenness. But this is not truth?


1. What is real purpose (advantages and drawbacks) of slim version and normal version of CPL filters? Is it worth to pay more for slim?

---

The advantage of a slim mount is that the chance of vignetting is reduced. But it really depends on the lens. I did some testing (see this linked thread), and found that with the 24-105mm on FF, you can stack 2 F-Pro filters with almost no impact on vignetting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamelot

2. I know, that there is normal type of filter, slim and the third, a little bit thicker than slim, which has small front thread for normal lens cap. And this is the most expensive. So.. i think if the slim version is better (depends on benefits), then it is better to pay a little more and get thicker slim version but with front thread. Am i right?

---

I know of one slim-type mount with front threads, and that's B+W XS-Pro mount. In fact, for the CPL the XS-Pro is actually thinner than the slim mount. B+W lists their filter mount thicknesses here. Since the only real advantage of slim filters is to reduce vignetting, as long as you're not planning on stacking another filter with the CPL (e.g. an ND filter), the standard mount should be fine for the 24-105mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamelot

3.Which manufacturer? I read, that in the world is only 3 manufacturer and they produce all filters to resellers, which sells filters with its own name.

---

Rodenstock is a reputable brand, so I'm sure that will be fine. Some Hoya filters are good, too, but they have multiple lines - the high end line (SHMC, for exmaple) are close to B+W, while the low end stuff is not very good. Personally, I use B+WKäsemannCPLs (I have 77mm and 82mm filters in the Slim mount). But if B+W is not available where you are, that's an issue!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamelot

1. What is real purpose (advantages and drawbacks) of slim version and normal version of CPL filters? Is it worth to pay more for slim?


I know one drawback, that slim version has its own cap which is not so good to use.


2. I know, that there is normal type of filter, slim and the third, a little bit thicker than slim, which has small front thread for normal lens cap. And this is the most expensive. So.. i think if the slim version is better (depends on benefits), then it is better to pay a little more and get thicker slim version but with front thread. Am i right?


3. Which manufacturer? I read, that in the world is only 3 manufacturer and they produce all filters to resellers, which sells filters with its own name.

---

I have B+H CPL so my answers are based on those.


1, If you are not stacking the filters it wouldn't be worth the extra money. I have never had any CPL vigenette at 24mm. If you go wider than 24mm athin filtermight be needed, I have a thin polarizer for my 16-35L II. At 24mm no you don't need it unless stacking.


2. I just bought this, [View:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...gital_MC.html] just the other day,it is expensive and thin with threads, but you could always go thin and stack the CPL as the last filter, B+W sends a lens cap for the thin filters with the filter.


3, I only do B+H so if you can't get B+H I am not much help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamelot

Bryan mentioned in its reviews, that both slim and normal version of polarizer filters in certain conditions (with wide angle) shows unevenness. There is written, that this effect was noticed with ~ 20.8 mm focal length.

---

This is more the nature of a CPL, and it differs in relation to where you are taking a picture and where the sun is. It is more noticeable on a wide lens because you are catchinglarge portionof the blue sky in the frame. On a telephoto lens you are just catching a piece of the sky so you wouldn't notice it as much if at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamelot

About B+W filters i do not see anything in my country. I tried to find any technical information about B+W (and other filters) filters, but all i can find is only advertise on the e-shops and marketing papers.

---

Even where I am at in the US, occasionally I can find one of the low end B+W filters at a local shop. They would never have a CPL or high end MRC filter. I always have to order on line, if you can get one online that might be the way to go.

Just wanted to provide a few more examples of the "unevenness." Dr. Croubie's example illustrates the issue very well. But, I am still a little bitter having taken these last week. Both with the Canon 7D at 15 mm.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/0601.Palouse-IMG_5F00_3458.JPG[/img]


This was just snapped out of a car window.........honestly, the unevenness looks a little less extreme on the website compared to the photo called up on my computer screen.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/7140.Palouse-IMG_5F00_3466.JPG[/img]

To be honest, I don

Hey Brant,


I think the unevenness is less bothersome in the first one, where it

I use 5D mark II. So with FF unevenness will be noticeable with 24 mm. But from all samples here i see, that this effect is not so strong and quite acceptable to me. Because in Bryan review unevenness is much stronger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by <span class="user-name"

neuroanatomist]I did some testing (see this linked thread), and found that with the 24-105mm on FF, you can stack 2 F-Pro filters with almost no impact on vignetting.

---

I read your topic, nice research and i read it just before that i wanted to ask here :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I know of one slim-type mount with front threads, and that's B+W XS-Pro mount. In fact, for the CPL the XS-Pro is actually thinner than the slim mount. B+W lists their filter mount thicknesses here.
Since the only real advantage of slim filters is to reduce vignetting,
as long as you're not planning on stacking another filter with the CPL
(e.g. an ND filter), the standard mount should be fine for the 24-105mm.

---

If B+W F-Pro is 7 mm thick, 2 filters total has 14 mm. That's a lot. But now i need to find out Rodenstock filters thickness. Because i think, that all time i will not use CPL filter because of light loss, but i want to have protection from water. So..i think that first filter could be just protection fillter (or UV). It could be all the time on my lens. And the second filter could be CPL. I think that in certain situations it would be faster to remove just one filter than to change between 2 filters.

Rich, all of those are good suggestions. I think I will be picking up a ND102 or103 sometime soon. My grad 102 may have also been better than the CPL for this scene.

I read a little about Hoya HD CPL filter. Almost everywhere is written, that this filter is very durable and can transmit more light than other filters because of the higher quality glass. But if this is true, could this "better light transmission" reduce polarization effect? Because i think, that there is still some limit, that polarization effect can be achieved and you can't manufacture filter, which would reduce light transmission loss and would have equal characteristics to normal hight quality CPL filters. Or this is only cheap filters property?


jake66, maybe you could comment from your experience? or someone else?

I have found the the polarizing effect on my Hoya HD CPL to be extremely good. It makes a huge difference to some of the shots I have taken with it on my 17-55mm


I don

I can

I have one more question.


Does the polarization filter creates effect, that camera can capture wider Dynamic Range? I am talking about landscapes and if the sky in the photo looks darker, more saturated, maybe filter mainly affects only the sky in such a scene? Then ground (fields and forests) gain almost the same exposure or just a little darker than in photo without filter. And finaly due to Polarization captured photo looks with major Dynamic Range - ground is in proper exposure and the sky is not too bright with detailsof clouds.


I understand, that filter can't do what you can do with 3 or more photos with different exposures. But maybe it could help <span class="HW"]although <span class="HW"]just a little to create photos with greater Dynamic Range (DR)?<span class="HW"]

I don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icanon

I don't use the polarizer for blueing the sky. In 99% of the time the sky is not my subject instead I use it to bring out the more saturation/details of the foreground of my subject. Obviously I'm talking Landscape and architectural photography here. The darken or 'blueing' I'll increase the saturation in the software I'm using such as Lightroom.

---

As i do not have polarizer yet and do not use it, i dont know, what exact effect is in final view if we are talking about exposure. You want to say, that polarizer filter just change exposure (makes it approx. 1 or 2 F number darker) equally to all scene? It do not affect sky exposure more than ground or other objects?

I took a class a few years ago with Moose Peterson as instructor and he changed my use using the polarizer. Did a google search on this subject and here is what Mooose had to say: www.moosepeterson.com/.../polarizer.html


Also he did a class at Kelby training stating the same (paid subscription) kelbytraining.com/.../moosepeterson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icanon

I took a class a few years ago with Moose Peterson as instructor and he changed my use using the polarizer. Did a google search on this subject and here is what Mooose had to say: www.moosepeterson.com/.../polarizer.html


Also he did a class at Kelby training stating the same (paid subscription) kelbytraining.com/.../moosepeterson

---

I read that article. Really nice explanation! Thanks [:)]


Need to buy polarizer finally [;)]