Circular Polarizers - Costs

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hi All,

Does anyone know why some cpl's cost about 20 pounds, while others cost 200?

Is it the build quality, or is image quality drastically affected by using a cheaper one?

PaulieC

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi All,

Does anyone know why some cpl's cost about 20 pounds, while others cost 200?

Is it the build quality, or is image quality drastically affected by using a cheaper one?

I wouldn't say 'drastically' affected, but the expensive ones are probably better quality (although some definitely carry a badge premium). I have a Hoya one which cost about 50 euros and it does me perfectly well. You'd have to be some pixel peeper to see any difference.

Keep your money young man!

PopeBuckfastXVI

cambo_gueno wrote: »

I wouldn't say 'drastically' affected, but the expensive ones are probably better quality (although some definitely carry a badge premium). I have a Hoya one which cost about 50 euros and it does me perfectly well. You'd have to be some pixel peeper to see any difference.

Keep your money young man!

Thanks Paul, that's what I suspected

Borderfox

Some can be extra thin for some ff wideangles. If I stack a UV and CP on a 17-40L and Canon 5d you get vignetting at 17-20mm

Fenster

I simply do not have the words to be able to eloquently enunciate the facts, but yeah, there can be very striking differences in image outcome - I say outcome because with a different polarizer you will get a different effect. If you give me a shout over the weekend I can give you the try of a B+W circular polarizer for comparison with a cheap one.

CabanSail

A few years ago I bought a Generic CPL on eBay. It was a complete waste of money. At longer focal lengths the distortion was terrible.

Since then I have used Hoya CPL's and they are fine.

broad_sword

If you really are into your photography and are using high quality glass on your body, you're better off spending a little more on a good quality polariser. It is one effect you can't reproduce in post production and a good quality polariser will really make your images stand out. I use a B+W one and am v pleased with the results from it.
Obviously the bigger the thread size, the more expensive the filter will be. I use a 77mm sized one.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thanks all, yeah it's the thread size that's killing me - 77mm is dear!

Thanks Fenster, have my mother down visiting for the weekend, but definitely we must meet up for a few snaps in the next few weeks, I'll even bring my 50mm 1.4 & infrared filter

CabanSail

You can get thread adapters, so that your expensive 77mm CPL can then be used on your other lenses with smaller threads.

DaireQuinlan

CabanSail wrote: »

You can get thread adapters, so that your expensive 77mm CPL can then be used on your other lenses with smaller threads.

well, within limits:) you don't want to stick a 77mm polariser onto the front of a lens with a 52mm thread. Actually I guess there's no REAL reason no to, but it's awkward and looks stupid

Nikon-wise I have two sizes of everything filter related. 77mm and 52mm. 52mm is the standard nikon thread size for their old AIS lenses, and their smaller or slower modern lenses. Although of course there are quite a few lenses which don't take it. 77mm is (or at least was) the most common thread size for their f/2.8 zooms. My 20-35 takes it.

Then I have a bunch of step-up adapters for lenses that are slightly different. All my Bronica lenses are 67mm with a 67->77 step up mounted on the front and the appropriate lens caps so I can use all the same filters. One or two other lenses < 52mm have step-ups to 52. I don't really have anything that sits awkwardly in the range from 52->60 or so.

And yeah, I have a slimline nikon brand 77mm polariser that cost the guts of €90 or so. Anything larger would vignette on the 20-35 though. It is a COMPLETE pita to try and adjust that polariser from in front of the petal hood on the 20-35 :-)

sineadw

You should try 82mm

I'm a big fan of cheap generic filters, but I think with CPL and grad you're better off getting something in a higher price range.

DaireQuinlan

sineadw wrote: »

You should try 82mm

I can imagine. They seem to scale the price exponentially with filter size :mad:

Actually, thinking about it, it probably IS. r^2 and all that. Mmmmm. pi.

Same thing the other day when I was pricing 8x10 film. Here's a tip: Don't. I was amazed how expensive it was. "4 times more expensive than 4x5" I grumbled to myself. Until I realised of course that it's 4 times the area as well, so the prices actually kinda make sense. What I -can't- understand is how 8x10 colour paper is about 20c a sheet, and 8x10 colour film is about €20 a sheet. They both have more or less the same stuff in them really. Ubiquity and economies of scale I guess.

Fionn

tell me about it!!!!

had to hack this thing off a EF 16-35mm



the outside got a few scrapes but the lens thankfully was ok and it functions perfectly.

Fenster

Fionn wrote: »

tell me about it!!!!

had to hack this thing off a EF 16-35mm



the outside got a few scrapes but the lens thankfully was ok and it functions perfectly.

Jaysis. O.o

Nisio

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

And yeah, I have a slimline nikon brand 77mm polariser that cost the guts of €90 or so. Anything larger would vignette on the 20-35 though. It is a COMPLETE pita to try and adjust that polariser from in front of the petal hood on the 20-35 :-)

Daire, do you see any funny banding in the sky with the cpl filter on at 20mm?

DaireQuinlan

Nisio wrote: »

Daire, do you see any funny banding in the sky with the cpl filter on at 20mm?

Depends on how I'm using it but yeah, sometimes. It's a well known thing with polarisers and wide angles. The darkening effect of a polariser is at its strongest at a 90 degree angle to the sun. Either side of this (either facing the sun or facing away from the sun) isn't as strongly affected. A 20mm lens is just about wide enough so that this becomes quite apparent. Generally it's more a strong gradient than a band though. Here are a couple of examples. The second one I think is probably an example of exactly when NOT to use a polariser :-)

ThenComesDudley

ive been buying filters etc lately for both my film and digital slrs,, i was asked about price differences etc... one reason is that them seem to be made differently for both cameras. The digital slr filters are alot more expensive, but you can use the film filters on digital cameras. For me as i dont fully understand yet what i am doing so i have not noticed much of a difference, but i do believe there is one.

DaireQuinlan

ThenComesDudley wrote: »

ive been buying filters etc lately for both my film and digital slrs,, i was asked about price differences etc... one reason is that them seem to be made differently for both cameras. The digital slr filters are alot more expensive, but you can use the film filters on digital cameras. For me as i dont fully understand yet what i am doing so i have not noticed much of a difference, but i do believe there is one.

There's no difference. It's probably just a little addendum to con the gullible out of their hard won cash. Oooo, Digital ! It MUST be better ! A good multicoated filter will do the job for both film and digital.

sasar

Borderfox wrote: »

Some can be extra thin for some ff wideangles. If I stack a UV and CP on a 17-40L and Canon 5d you get vignetting at 17-20mm

If you don't mind me asking, why would you screw a cpl on top of uv filter? Every extra glass reduces the quality of your images, especially if they are the cheap ebay versions.
I got a few of them on ebay, some are grand but some are just horrible.