Polarizing Filters

[Mitsu3000gt]

Ok I have been doing some of my own reading but I wanted to check with you guys first.

Over reading week I will be going to hawaii/cuba/costa rica or mexico (havent decided yet). All of these places are presumably very sunny, with beaches and ocean. Taking pictures of bright skies and people in the water will likely benefit from a polarizing filter, is this correct? I read of some people who just leave the filter on all the time no matter what.

I was looking and i saw Kenko, hoya and nikon filters at TCS. The hoya being the cheapest and nikon the most. My 70-300vr and 18-135 are both a 67mm mounting size so I can buy one polarizer and use it for both lenses which is nice.

I was told on dpreview by someone that I should buy a Hoya (or whatever brand i choose) ultrawide circular polarizer. The ultra wide is so i don't get vingetting(?) when using it at 18mm.

Is all this true? I will go buy one as soon as I get everhting straight in my head. I like the price of the Hoya filters and some people seem to think they are pretty good.

Oh, and can I just leave a polarizer on for taking pictures of animals/birds/landscapes/random touristy things/etc?

Any help is appreciated, thanks.

[seer_claw]

I'm using the Hoya CP on my 18-200 and it works wonders when you are looking to take off some reflections or dampen the sky on ultrabright days.

I've left mine on for shooting touristy things, people/landscapes. I didn't notice any problems other than that the shutter speeds where slightly higher than I would associate with the lighting conditions.

I haven't noticed any perceptable vingetting or problems with my photos at 18mm. I just couldn't justify the cost of the Nikon CP at the time and I wouldn't even think about again. I've been getting good shots with the Hoya and I don't think that the Nikon will make my shots any better.

Just my $0.02.

[Obscura]

considering a polarizing filter typically cuts out two stops of light I'm not sure how you could get faster shutter speeds... doesn't work that way.

I wouldn't leave it on all the time no matter what, it's only useful in some situations. It's not a substitute for a UV or 1A.

I'm wondering if you really would need a wide angle polarizer... since the sensor size is smaller vinetting might not be an issue because it's really not the same coverage. I shall have to explore this tomorrow.


I like the Nikon polarizers... they are typically the wide angle type and are worth the cost IMO.. I also will use B+W.

[seer_claw]

Originally posted by Obscura
considering a polarizing filter typically cuts out two stops of light I'm not sure how you could get faster shutter speeds... doesn't work that way.


I like the Nikon polarizers... they are typically the wide angle type and are worth the cost IMO.. I also will use B+W.

Whoops...I meant slower, thats what I get for not paying attention to what I am typing.

[Obscura]

lol it would be a cool filter, polarizes and gathers ilight...

I think that will fall under the "special" polarizers next to the one that eliminates power lines in pictures

[Mitsu3000gt]

I was told to get exactly this kind by someone who seems to know his stuff on dpreview:

Hoya XXmm Circular Polarizer/UV Haze (HMC) Multi-Coated Glass Filter - Ultra


Is that one pretty good?

[Obscura]

it has "Ultra" in the name it must be good

seriously I'm sure it's a good filter. Honestly though I'd get what they recommend at The Camera Store... they aren't going to mislead you... if they recommend Nikon or Hoya that will probably do for what you need.

Just make sure you watch your shutter speeds when you use one... if you are using a combination of a long focal length , a low ISO equivilent, a smaller aperture and a CP you might need more than the lenses VR can complinsate for.

just a thought but I make this up as I type so what do I know?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Haha alright, thanks, I really appreciate the help. So the camera automatically adjusts the shutter speed (Say, in "A" mode) to compensate for the filter by simply giving me a little bit slower speeds? Or do I need to do anticipate this myself and set the camera manually?

[Obscura]

your camera uses a through the lens reflected light meter (TTL) so it will take into account any filter used because light has to pass through the filter first.

the only time you would have to figure out how a filter affects your exposure is if you were using a handheld meter (incident).

you should consider taking a couple classes at SAIT. All of your questions would be answered by taking the basic photo class and the basic digital class.

just a thought...

[Mitsu3000gt]

I really want to take some classes there but at this point in my life neither time nor money permit that, so I must use other resources (you guys, dpreview, nikonians, etc.) Right now I am a full time student at night and work in the day.

Thanks for your help I will be going to TCS as soon as I get some spare time (whenever that may be).

[andandandrew]

Polarizing filters cut out Polarized light. They dont necessarily cut two stops off...
They dont dampen the brightness in your sky either... they give a lot more texture to the clouds though...
I would say go for it, buy whatever one fits your budget.

Also, keep it on at all times, It won't negatively affect any of your pictures.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I picked up a Kenko extra wide one from TCS. Some guy who has been shooting for 20 some years reccomended it, so I'm sure its fine. I found it definately cuts down my shutter speed, especially when i rotate it to make things darker (i guess that makes sense though).

I will bring it to cuba with me and try do some comparisons with and without and see what happens. It was only $100, so even if I don't use it its not a problem.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I'm a polarizer addict. I just love the effect that it gives to skies, and I use it primarily to keep skies from being too blown out.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Ok I went outside a few days ago and took some pictures with the polarizer. I am having some mixed opinions. On the pics with more polarization, there is a thick dark line down most of the picture in the sky (it looks kinda cool, but wasnt there in real life). In my "fast stone picture viewer" ALL the skies look dark purpley, just like a thunderstorm is rolling in. In photoshop, the sky looks actually quite excellent. I am not sure which colors to believe, but probably photoshop.

Here are my examples just in my back yard:

This first picture looks like its about to be a thunderstorm, with purple skies. The other 2 demonstrate the giant dark spot in the middle of the sky that didn't exist in real life. I also noticed it lowered my shutter speed substantially. Any thoughts? Im probably just using it wrong. I rotated it around and tried different levels to get the below pictures.

The sky was a light whiteish- blue on a super sunny day with no clouds for the pictures. Maybe my white balance was just off for the first picture - I used Auto WB for all pics. There is a remote possibility that the first pic wasn not taken with the polizer as I was playing around, but im 99% sure it was.

P.S. Given my history with posting massive pictures, I thought I'd say that these pictures look very small on my screen and should not be huge. Please let me know if they are.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Anyone know what the dark blotches in the middle of the sky are from?

[msommers]

Check this out near the bottom of the page

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digi...on-filters.htm

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by msommers
Check this out near the bottom of the page

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digi...on-filters.htm

Thanks a alot, I was worried something was wrong with my polarizer. So, what I did wrong was shoot 90 degrees to the sun? At that time I believe the sun was almost precisely 90 degrees to my right, so that was probably why.

Thanks!