# Polarizing vs ND filter Europe trip.



## Imagination_landB (Mar 11, 2013)

Hi all, I'm wondering if it's worth it to buy one or another of these 2 filter types for a 2 months Europe trip. I mean for landscapes and what would be the benefits of a Polarizing versus the ND etc. It would be a 82mm filter (tamron 24-70 VC ).. Thank you!


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 11, 2013)

A set of LEE GND's and ND's will do wonders to landscape photos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2013)

ND is for slow shutter speeds - I use a 10-stop for architecture shots as it blurs out people passing by. A CPL is great for increasing contrast/saturation, reducing glare, and cuts ~1.75 stops of light. Both are useful, in 82mm neither are cheap...


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 11, 2013)

Imagination_landB said:


> Hi all, I'm wondering if it's worth it to buy one or another of these 2 filter types for a 2 months Europe trip. I mean for landscapes and what would be the benefits of a Polarizing versus the ND etc. It would be a 82mm filter (tamron 24-70 VC ).. Thank you!



The bigger question is, what do you want your filters to do for you while you're in Europe? Like neuro said, if you want to reduce glare, etc... get the polarizer. If you need to increase your shutter time, get the ND. I'm not a big fan of GND filters, so you'll need to get somebody else to convince you to get one of those.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Mar 11, 2013)

Here's a nice article on the subject:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/graduated-neutral-density-filters.htm

And as neuro and others have pointed out they get expensive at your particular filter size. I just bought a B+W CPL in 77mm and its a big piece of glass not to mention expensive.

For GND's you probably want to get a rectangular gel or glass like the Lee or Cokin filters rather than a screw in. The rectangular filters give you more flexibility when it comes to placement.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ND is for slow shutter speeds - I use a 10-stop for architecture shots as it blurs out people passing by. A CPL is great for increasing contrast/saturation, reducing glare, and cuts ~1.75 stops of light. Both are useful, in 82mm neither are cheap...



You ain't kidding.


----------



## Stig (Mar 11, 2013)

+1 on Neuro and EOBeav, I just want to add, that if budget allows, I think they could coexist in a bag nicely 

e.g., dark ND can help you smooth moving water and CPL, while mostly mentioned with regard to the bluer sky effect, also reduces reflections off nonmetal surfaces like glass or that aforementioned water, and conveniently, there is a nice example posted here, today... look at the 4th picture in the OP http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13480.0 , I think that that you can see the rocks under the water adds an interesting touch to the photo... and, an ND was used as well (so much to the coexistence  ) 
Btw, should you need more justification, you can use them in other than landscape photography as well, portraits would be more obvious, but I like CPL also for cars, and except the obvious windows it works on the body as well, because although it might be from metal, the clear coat isn't... thought that might be irrelevant to you


----------



## wle (Mar 12, 2013)

High quality polarizing filter.

And even consider 2 polarizing filters. A circular one (CPL) (which I bet you will leave on your camera almost all the time) and a linear one (LPL) to combine with your CPL to create your own variable ND filter. Here is a link to start -

http://digital-photography-school.com/create-your-own-variable-neutral-density-filter

A search for "diy variable nd filter" returns links to several articles and videos on the idea.


----------



## tcmatthews (Mar 12, 2013)

It really depends on what you want to do. A dark ND can blur motion and make people disappear for architecture shots. Or a light ND to allows use of a fast prime in bright daylight. Personally I would get a Polarizing filter first. I shoot allot of pictures around water and a good Polarizing filter allows me to chose whether I want to see the reflections or what is under the water. 

Circular Polarizing filters are very versatile filters you can also use them for any picture that has glass. It will alloy you to see through the glass or adjust to better see the reflected seen on the glass. I have a polarizing filter for every filter size I currently own. So it is in general my second most owned type of filter other than the filters being used for protection UV/clear. I am currently build up a set of ND filers all at 77mm. I simply bought stepper rings so that I could use them on any lens I might want. 

Not cheep is an under statement i just bought a B+W 77mm Xs-pro last week to replace a cheep CP. It was $160 and the 82mm was over $200. Lets face it I have a few lenses that cost less. All good filters at 82mm are expensive.

When you buy ND I would really consider getting the step down rings for you other lenses.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 12, 2013)

As has been said, it depends upon what you want to shoot:

Blurred people/water--solid ND filters (6 stop to 10 stop)
Reduced glare and up to 1.75 ND filter, then a circular polarizer
Landscape photography---hard edge grad ND filters

I think a great kit would be a CPL (screw in), 2 stop hard edge grad ND filter (4x6), 3 stop reverse grad ND filter (4x6), 3 stop soft edge grad ND filter (4x6), 6 stop ND filter (screw in) and a 10 stop ND filter (screw in). But I just said $500-$1,000.

If you need to cut down on cost, it does really depend on what you want to do, but CPL is typically a good first filter. 

Good brands are B+W or Singh Ray for the screw in filters, and Lee or Singh Ray for the grad ND filters.

An article I like:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/dw0502-1.html

Good luck.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 13, 2013)

I highly recommend these cases for holding your filters
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735394-REG/Tiffen_4BLTPCHLGK_Belt_Filter_Pouch_Large.html


----------

