# Polarizers



## wellfedCanuck (Feb 17, 2012)

I need a circular polarizer. Is there a significant difference in quality between a brand such as Hoya and the cheapies such as http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/rocketfish-rocketfish-58mm-circular-camera-polarizer-rf-cp58-rf-cp58/10149863.aspx?path=0cd349a4e6e972a7369ea352f73c4908en02?

thanks!


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 17, 2012)

As always, quality is expensive.
I have had a few cheap ones, but had serious problems with vignetting. Probably because they are significantly thicker then the slim versions from B&W and HOYA that I use. 
On the 16-35 L the difference is just shocking. I don't know why the thickness of the glass has such an impact.

Hope this helps


----------



## Tijn (Feb 17, 2012)

The good quality ones will effectively block more light. A lesser quality one will block out some, but not all polarized light (of the orientation it's supposed to be blocking).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2012)

The cheap polarizing filters are a great value. It's like getting two filters in one - not only do you get a polarizing effect, you also get a great soft focus effect that reduces the sharpness of your image and provides a soft glow around your subject, and you get that soft focus effect for no extra charge!!

:


----------



## Tijn (Feb 17, 2012)

wopbv4 said:


> I have had a few cheap ones, but had serious problems with vignetting. Probably because they are significantly thicker then the slim versions from B&W and HOYA that I use.
> On the 16-35 L the difference is just shocking. I don't know why the thickness of the glass has such an impact.


The black ring in which the filter glass is fitted acts like a lens hood that's too narrow for wide lenses. A slim (or 'wide') filter has less black ring so less or no light is lost at the edges of the front lens element. Long lenses (like 135+ mm) have a narrow enough field of view not to have any negative effects from a normal size filter.

B+W and HOYA, too, have regular size filters. The advantage of them is that they have a front thread so that filters can be stacked, or the original lens cap can be put on front even with the filter on.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Feb 18, 2012)

wopbv4 said:


> As always, quality is expensive.
> I have had a few cheap ones, but had serious problems with vignetting. Probably because they are significantly thicker then the slim versions from B&W and HOYA that I use.
> On the 16-35 L the difference is just shocking. I don't know why the thickness of the glass has such an impact.
> 
> Hope this helps



Very much, thanks. (And to the others, as well.)



neuroanatomist said:


> The cheap polarizing filters are a great value. It's like getting two filters in one - not only do you get a polarizing effect, you also get a great soft focus effect that reduces the sharpness of your image and provides a soft glow around your subject, and you get that soft focus effect for no extra charge!!
> 
> :


Right on! ... sort of a Hypstamatic or Instagram effect for DSLRs! ;D


----------



## 1DSLR (Feb 18, 2012)

*See LensTips review (Re: Polarizers)*

LensTips tested and reviewed various manufacturers and models. LINK


----------



## Adam Schallau (Feb 18, 2012)

I owned several Hoya HD circular polarizers including a pair of 82mm filters, and a pair of 77mm filters. I loved the quality of the filter itself, but I quickly became tired of these filters falling apart...including once in the middle of a backpacking trip in the Grand Canyon.

About a year ago I switched to the Marumi DHG Super Circular P.L.D filters based on the recommendation of a popular filter reseller. I couldn't be happier with these filters, and it seems that the LensTip.com site lies them as well. Checkout chapter 24.


----------



## photophreek (Feb 18, 2012)

++1 for the Marumi Super DHG polarizers. I based my decision to go with Marumi on the LensTip review and couldn't be happier. An added benefit is that these filters are reasonably priced.


----------



## Sebastian5495 (Feb 19, 2012)

@archangelrichard I don't think you know neuro very well...


----------



## ejenner (Feb 19, 2012)

The biggest difference I've seen (without doing pixel-peeping test shots) is with flare.

I had a super-cheap one (Hoya) and to be honest it seemed to work fine, but since flare is definitely an issue for me and is a major factor in lens purchases, it did not make sense to keep using the cheap ones.

Personally I would either buy cheap (you are still going to be a lot better off than no CPL when you need it) or something really decent. But that's JMO.


----------



## dr croubie (Feb 20, 2012)

I've been through many CPLs lately. Started with 58mm and 72mm Fujiyama i got cheap in hong kong.
Then trawling ebay one week I came across a 67mm B+W Kaesemann and 77mm Hoya HRT, and then a week ago I got a 72mm Heliopan ES72.
The original intention was to put the Hoya HRT on my 70-300L, get better bird colours (like for Rainbow Lorikeets) and not lose too much shutter speed. But the Kaesemann wins hands-down for the 70-300L.
I did some direct comparison-shots on the weekend, I haven't gotten to posting them or writing a review, but in short, the Hoya HRT messes with the colours way too much. Surely I could just PP it back to normal, but the white balance is off and skies look brown. The others look all about the same.

And whoever said flare, that's another main problem. The Kaesemann is the only Multi-coated one I've got (i don't think the heliopan is mc, i'll check when i get home). Here's my original test before I got the heliopan (or a good tripod), i'll be posting the next test results at some point...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The cheap polarizing filters are a great value. It's like getting two filters in one - not only do you get a polarizing effect, you also get a great soft focus effect



I am using a 25 year old cheap Hoya (Hama in Germany) polarizer, and it works just fine for eliminating water reflection with no sharpness loss on my (very sharp) macro lens. I am not using it as a sky effect filter, but for a few select shots - and I'd be very hesitant to shell out lots of money for a "premium" filter. A lens protection clear filter that stays on is another matter.



ejenner said:


> The biggest difference I've seen (without doing pixel-peeping test shots) is with flare.



+1 for that - but there's no flare if you're not shooting towards the sky or directly against a sun reflection.


----------

