User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Polariser for UWA? Worth it?

  1. #1
    Member leanne0333's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Aug 2012
    Location
    Byron Bay
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Polariser for UWA? Worth it?

    Off to NZ tomorrow. contemplating popping into town in the morning to buy a polariser for my UWA. So interested to know anyones views on polarisers for UWA (11-16 crop sensor) A good quality filter will set me back $190 so is it worth it? I know the effect is not as dramatic for UWA and there is a risk of vignetting. But I would be lost without my polariser for my other lenses (which works perfectly at 18mm) and since my subjects will mostly be mountains, forests, beaches, glaciers, more mountains....

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    11 Oct 2010
    Location
    Bendigo
    Posts
    384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good for waterfalls but they dont work very well on skies. that price sounds high, kenko pro1d are good, and from memory a fair bit cheaper.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    09 Feb 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    8,372
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    agree 100% with hakka on this one. I used on on the Milford track a couple of years ago and could kick myself very hard. The skies are very uneven when you go really wide. Just use it for cutting back reflections and doing waterfalls if you have not got an ND filter. OK if you don`t go too wide. Take it off if you do a panorama sequence.
    Graeme
    "May the good Lord look down and smile upon your face"......Norman Gunston___________________________________________________
    Nikon: D7000, D80, 12-24 f4, 17-55 f2.8, 18-135, 70-300VR, 35f2, SB 400, SB 600, TC-201 2x converter. Tamron: 90 macro 2.8 Kenko ext. tubes. Photoshop CS2.


  4. #4
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    18,836
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A couple of other recent opinions here .......http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...41-UWA-and-CPL
    "Enjoy what you can do rather than being frustrated at what you can't." bobt
    Canon 80D, 60D, Canon 28-105, Sigma 150-600S.

  5. #5
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For the Tokina 11-16mm you may need the slim version of a polariser.
    The standard versions have been known to cause excessive vignetting.

    The reason this can happen is pure physics.
    The front element on the Tokina is a constant F/2.8, and so the glass is physically bigger than other wide angle lenses of 'similar' types.
    eg. the front element on the Siggy 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is about half the diameter of the Tokina front element.
    That means that the part of the lens element that focuses the light rays onto the sensor is closer to the edge of the lens barrel and hence the edges of the filter too.

    That probably explains part of the high price of the filter.
    Those slimline polarisers can be more expensive, but also in saying that they also seem to have a better build quality than the standard versions too.


    I'd say get one .. but also be weary of them on ebay, they are prime targets for forgeries, so if a price looks too good to be true, it most likely is.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •