User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: which lens should I get my Polarizing Filter for?

  1. #1
    Member coolhand78's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Jun 2013
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    which lens should I get my Polarizing Filter for?

    Looking at getting a polarizing filter for my landscape and street photography, I've got two lenses a 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 and a 35mm f/1.8
    on my nikon D7100?

    I'm very new to photography and am curious to know which lens you guys think i'd be best to get the filter for, i was leaning towards the 16-85mm
    as i think that will be the lens that i'd be likely to use the most...

    I was also looking at the Hoya HD polarizing Filter too - any thoughts on this filter?

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Regular ktoopi's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Apr 2011
    Location
    Northern Beaches Sydney
    Posts
    976
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would get it for the 16-85mm. I have a Canon 15-85mm and I love it and use it a lot. my 2 cents worth
    Canon 5diii; Canon 7D; Canon 3.5 15-85mm IS USM; Canon 4-5.6 70-300mm IS USM; Canon 1.4 50mm , Canon Macro 100mm 2.8 L IS USM, Canon 35mm 1.4 L USM, Canon 24-105mm L IS USM, CPL and UV filters, manfrotto tripod and Lowepro backpack plus dreams for so much more!!


  3. #3
    Other side of the hill ...
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The wide angle 16-85mm lens. The whole point of a CPL filter is to cut glare when shooting around reflective surfaces such as water. Your 35mm is much more of a portrait lens and the CPL would be wasted while reducing the IQ of the lens. JMHO of course.
    Waz
    Be who you are and say what you mean, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind - Dr. Seuss...
    D700 | D7000 | Nikkor AF-S 18-55 DX 1:3.5-5.6G | Nikkor AF-S 55-300 DX 1:4.5-5.6 G ED | Nikkor AF 50 f/1.8D | Optex OPM2930 tripod/monopod | Enthusiasm ...
    My Flickr images ...

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by coolhand78 View Post
    Looking at getting a polarizing filter for my landscape and street photography, I've got two lenses a 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 and a 35mm f/1.8
    on my nikon D7100?

    I'm very new to photography and am curious to know which lens you guys think i'd be best to get the filter for, i was leaning towards the 16-85mm
    as i think that will be the lens that i'd be likely to use the most...

    I was also looking at the Hoya HD polarizing Filter too - any thoughts on this filter?
    Good quality polarising filters can be expensive so if possible try to buy a filter that you can continue to use long into the future, rather than collecting the same filter in multiple sizes for each lens. For example, if you buy the largest Polarising filter (PL) that you think you need you can also use it on lenses that require a smaller filter by using a cheap step-up ring. Nikon and Canon tend to stick to certain common sizes for their pro lenses, eg 72, 77 or 82mm so buying one of these would make sense if you think you might buy more than one lens in that size. A downside of this approach is that it may prevent you using lens hoods.

    In your case, you might be best to buy a PL for your largest lens (I think 67mm) and simply use a step-up ring for the other lens.

    I tend to buy filters in 77mm size and use step up rings to fit virtually all of my lenses.

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoDo View Post
    ...the CPL would be wasted while reducing the IQ of the lens. JMHO of course.
    Not entirely accurate, based on my own experience and testing. See below:

    Polarizing filters, do they reduce image quality?

    Whilst some reduction in image quality is inevitable the degradation is not necessarily even visible, even at 100% magnification, whilst the advantages of using a PL can often improve an image dramatically. The Hoya and B+W filters that I regularly use have virtually no effect on sharpness, at least not to any extent that is readily apparent. Only very poor filters would cause a constant degradation in image sharpness or veiling glare in all circumstances whilst the best filters may only cause noticeable degradation in extreme circumstances if at all, possibly when veiling glare may be introduced by a filter with coatings of lesser quality/effectiveness than the lens itself.
    Last edited by jjphoto; 08-08-2013 at 8:16pm.

  5. #5
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    17,534
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Asked this question some time ago. Johns suggestion about step-up rings is useful.

  6. #6
    Other side of the hill ...
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jjphoto View Post
    Whilst some reduction in image quality is inevitable the degradation is not necessarily even visible, even at 100% magnification, whilst the advantages of using a PL can often improve an image dramatically.
    While that may be true in the case of landscape photography, I doubt it would be true in portrait photography. Why use a filter to reduce the amount of light hitting your sensor when it isn't necessary? Doesn't make sense to me. My point was that the 35mm f/1.8 is most useful as a portrait lens and that reducing the value of the fast glass by interposing a CPL unnecessarily seems to me to be a pretty stupid thing to do. Your mileage my vary of course.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    05 Oct 2008
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    433
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    get one for the lens you use most
    I've done so many things I'm not proud of...and the things I am proud of are disgusting. ~Moe, The Simpsons

    http://Grae-and-co-images.com/

    canon 5dmk 2, some lenses, a couple of sticks to hold them up, a thing that make sun at night, and a sense of adventure

  8. #8
    Member
    Threadstarter
    coolhand78's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Jun 2013
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    56
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    so would you guys suggest that even though i currently don't have a lens that takes 77mm filters (though it's likely that i'll end up getting one either 12-24 nikkor or 10-20 sigma)
    that i should probably go that way and just buy the step up rings for the 2 lenses that I currently have?

  9. #9
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WhoDo View Post
    ...Why use a filter to reduce the amount of light hitting your sensor when it isn't necessary? Doesn't make sense to me. My point was that the 35mm f/1.8 is most useful as a portrait lens and that reducing the value of the fast glass by interposing a CPL unnecessarily seems to me to be a pretty stupid thing to do. Your mileage my vary of course.
    If anything I'd suggest that the opposite is the case, ie that a PL is problematic with a slow lens but quite useful with a fast one. But I'm not suggesting using one when shooting by candle light!

    I often use a PL when shooting portraits to help lower shutter speed when shooting wide open, or relatively so. This helps to allow the use of flash which needs a specific synch speed, often below 1/250th depending on the camera of course. It's no use shooting at 1/1000th of a sec if you want to use flash so you often need to lower the shutter speed somehow. Often an ND filter is too strong so a PL can be just right whilst still making it easy to focus.

    In portraiture the background is often as important as the subject so ignoring it or not controlling the background doesn't always yield the best results. A PL is often a good way to dramatically change or control the background without dramatically affecting the subject. Of course that depends on the background as a PL only works on polarised light such as from paint, plants (leaves), water and non ferrous surfaces, otherwise it's just an ND filter.

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoDo View Post
    ... Your mileage my vary of course.
    Yes, my mileage does vary, so much so that I 'invested' in a PL specifically for a lens I often use for portraiture.







    I also regularly use a PL on an various fast lens, regardless of the subject matter.

    But the OP mentions not portraiture, so may not be relevant anyway.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by coolhand78 View Post
    so would you guys suggest that even though i currently don't have a lens that takes 77mm filters (though it's likely that i'll end up getting one either 12-24 nikkor or 10-20 sigma)
    that i should probably go that way and just buy the step up rings for the 2 lenses that I currently have?
    Yes, if you're confident that you'll buy lenses that suit the 77mm filter.

    Buy a decent filter that will last you a long time but you might find yourself with a collection at some stage. Most of my PL/CPL's are 10 years old or even older in some cases so it pays to buy decent quality items.
    Last edited by jjphoto; 09-08-2013 at 11:19am.

  10. #10
    Other side of the hill ...
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jjphoto View Post
    I often use a PL when shooting portraits to help lower shutter speed when shooting wide open, or relatively so. This helps to allow the use of flash which needs a specific synch speed, often below 1/250th depending on the camera of course. It's no use shooting at 1/1000th of a sec if you want to use flash so you often need to lower the shutter speed somehow. Often an ND filter is too strong so a PL can be just right whilst still making it easy to focus.
    Hmmm... seems an overly complicated way to do things. With flash, just dialling in your max shutter sync speed ought to be enough. In fact, my D7000 automagically selects my max shutter sync speed when flash is selected, even in full manual mode. Easy. Why would you not take full, manual control when shooting portraits with flash anyway? Controlling the light is more important in portraiture than almost any other genre, IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by jjphoto View Post
    A PL is often a good way to dramatically change or control the background without dramatically affecting the subject.
    Really? So all the effort you go to when trying to balance the light on your subject in portraiture isn't "dramatically affected" (sic) when using a CPL on your lens? Doesn't seem right to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by jjphoto View Post
    Yes, my mileage does vary, so much so that I 'invested' in a PL specifically for a lens I often use for portraiture...[snip]...But the OP mentions not portraiture, so may not be relevant anyway.
    No, the OP doesn't mention portraiture specifically ... I did when I commented on the most common use for a 35mm f/1.8 lens. Doesn't change the facts, does it? Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on the use of polarising filters in portraiture.

  11. #11
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by coolhand78 View Post
    so would you guys suggest that even though i currently don't have a lens that takes 77mm filters (though it's likely that i'll end up getting one either 12-24 nikkor or 10-20 sigma)
    that i should probably go that way and just buy the step up rings for the 2 lenses that I currently have?
    I'd recommend that you get filters for the lens itself, and not rely on step up/down rings.

    Step rings work ok for some purposes, but I found not for polarising filters.
    I had/have step rings and used them once or twice ... actually, I think it was only once.

    It's almost inevitable that you'll find yourself shooting with a CPL attached, and the sun will be just ahead of, but to the side of the lens/filter. With this situation in mind, it's almost certain that the filter, or the lens may provide a really nice glare splat on the final image .. and don't bank on the best anti reflective coatings to help either .. they may, or they may not.
    Also in a situation like this contrast will certainly be slightly lower due to the excessive light striking the front of the lens/filter.

    So in these situations, what will be required is the use of your lens hood. With a 67mm front filter size and a 77mm filter used via the implementation of a step up ring .. you will not get the lens hood on the lens .. so some sort of makeshift shielding will be required.
    I remember doing this only once .. and then I went a bought a proper 67mm CPL filter instead.

    I know CPLs can be expensive, but the smaller versions aren't that much of a hit to the hip pocket .. and when you acquire the lenses that need the larger sized filters .. just factor that into the purchase as well.

    I don't think that you need to pay too much more than about $100 for a high quality 77mm CPL.

    From memory, Marumi's DHG and DHG Super series rated well in a CPL test I've seen a while back .. and Kenko's Zeta series have also been praised.

    One day soon I'll be ordering a couple of new CPLs, as mine are getting old and I need a new one in 82mm anyhow .. so I may try one of each those two brands to see if there are any advantages to either brand.

    I have a Hoya Pro1 super D or whatever uber expensive variant they have on offer, and in some testing I did a few years back I saw zero difference in normal shooting between it and the 20yo polariser I've used as my primary filter(on mainly on the Sigma 10-20mm) since day one. The Super Hoya has hardly ever seen any use(I guess it's just there in the bag as a spare).


    Having said that, Step up rings can still be useful!
    I kept all my step rings but for the purpose of adapting my grad filter holders onto any lens. That is, instead of purchasing filter holder rings in each of the sizes for all my lenses, I just got the biggest(which is now too small for my newest biggest lens tho!) ring, and use the step adapters on that ring for my smaller lenses. So step adapters are useless, as implied in my reply.
    But this is only because the Cokin and/or Lee filter system CAN'T use your lenses hood anyhow.

    Those Lee/Cokin filter holder rings can be pretty expensive, and I'm dreading the purchase of the 82mm ring(if it exists).
    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


  12. #12
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WhoDo View Post
    Hmmm... seems an overly complicated way to do things. With flash, just dialling in your max shutter sync speed ought to be enough. In fact, my D7000 automagically selects my max shutter sync speed when flash is selected, even in full manual mode. Easy. Why would you not take full, manual control when shooting portraits with flash anyway? Controlling the light is more important in portraiture than almost any other genre, IMHO. ...
    It's not that simple where you have ambient light to contend with. Your only option to lower your shutter speed is to increase your aperture, which you might not want to do for creative reasons, or use a form of ND filter such as a CPL/PL. It's a situation I'm in quite regularly as I often shoot portraits outdoors and have to balance ambient with flash.

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoDo View Post
    ...Why would you not take full, manual control when shooting portraits with flash anyway? Controlling the light is more important in portraiture than almost any other genre, IMHO.
    ...
    I almost always use manual.

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoDo View Post
    ...Really? So all the effort you go to when trying to balance the light on your subject in portraiture isn't "dramatically affected" (sic) when using a CPL on your lens? Doesn't seem right to me...
    Light is typically not strongly polarised when it reflects from a person whilst it is strongly polarised when it reflects from a paint, sky or water surface. The difference is dramatic indeed. Try it.

  13. #13
    Other side of the hill ...
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jjphoto View Post
    Light is typically not strongly polarised when it reflects from a person whilst it is strongly polarised when it reflects from a paint, sky or water surface. The difference is dramatic indeed. Try it.
    Ah! Well who says an old bloke can't learn something new every day? I hadn't imagined there would be a significant difference. Go figure.

  14. #14
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WhoDo View Post
    Ah! Well who says an old bloke can't learn something new every day? I hadn't imagined there would be a significant difference. Go figure.
    I realised we might be talking about slightly different things. I'm talking about the effect of the polarising filter itself on polarised light, ie as you rotate the ring to alter it's effect on polarised light. The ND effect of the PL itself will be roughly 1.5-1.75 stops and this will have an equal effect on all parts of the image but as you rotate the PL filter ring polarised light will be filtered further, so a sky may be darkened even further for example. Not sure if that clarifies or just further confuses matters.

  15. #15
    Other side of the hill ...
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jjphoto View Post
    I realised we might be talking about slightly different things. I'm talking about the effect of the polarising filter itself on polarised light, ie as you rotate the ring to alter it's effect on polarised light. The ND effect of the PL itself will be roughly 1.5-1.75 stops and this will have an equal effect on all parts of the image but as you rotate the PL filter ring polarised light will be filtered further, so a sky may be darkened even further for example. Not sure if that clarifies or just further confuses matters.
    No, it does clarify things a bit ... thanks. I've always had trouble balancing ambient light with flash outdoors when shooting portraits, so it's good to know that a CPL would help without necessarily reducing the quality of light reflecting from the subject.

Posting Permissions

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