View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Eriksen
Joined: 15 Nov 2016 Posts: 153
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:53 am Post subject: Which Polarizing filter should I go for? |
|
|
Eriksen wrote:
There are a lot of dirt cheap filters on ebay, but are they good? Which affordable filters will be the best to buy? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kypfer
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 Posts: 513 Location: Jersey C.I.
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
kypfer wrote:
I usually pay less than £5 for an "old-school" second-hand glass linear polariser for use with manual-focus lenses. Any one with a recognisable brand-name on it should be OK if it's not actually scratched.
With the current demand for larger circular polarise filters on autofocus zoom lenses, linear filters are readily available and often regarded as "of no further use" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskalaCafe
Joined: 23 Jul 2015 Posts: 602 Location: South Finland, countryside
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
kansalliskalaCafe wrote:
that's sort of a mixed bag?
do you use film or digital?
http://forum.mflenses.com/sea-linear-polarizer-with-s-m-c-120-2-8-t16113.html _________________ (my normal account password still on another computer) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10463 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
An interesting experiment to compare filters is to let sunlight shine through onto white paper. You may see different tints and shades. Or, decide the filter degrades the image when it is not necessary, which may well be a rare occasion. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
After having a pretty dismal experience with a no-name UV filter on one of my telephotos, I won't ever skimp on filters again. This goes for polarizers also. If folks here are like me, after having acquired a good collection of lenses, you've probably also amassed a good collection of filters, including a variety of polarizers. So I can usually just rummage through my polarizer inventory to find one that will work for what I need.
I know how linear polarizers work, but I'm not so sure about circular ones. I have a couple, but I don't recall actually using them. Back in my early days of photography I had some slides that came out weird and it was because I didn't know how they worked. Like a deep blue sky on one side of the photo fading to pale blue by the other side of the photo. Weird. Then I learned how to use them and things got better. Actually, I'd already learned about this in a physics class taken years earlier, so it was a matter of applying what I'd learned.
At any rate, if I can assume that circular ones polarize light in a similar fashion, here's a good rule of thumb (literally, as it turns out) to follow when using a polarizer. The rule is that light is polarized at a right angle from the direction of the sun and the best way to determine how this works in a photo is to use your hand with the thumb up and the fingers pointed straight out. Point your thumb at the sun and the area of the sky that your fingers will sweep as you pivot your hand on your thumb is that area of the sky that will be polarized with a filter. So, for example, if you shoot the sky at noon, with the sun directly overhead, the sky at the horizon is the area that will be polarized.
A well-known reason for using a polarizer is to eliminate glare and reflections. However, this does not occur with all materials. A second rule of polarization is that reflections off metal are not affected by a polarizer. The reason is that the light that is reflected off bright metal is already polarized, so the polarizer has no effect.
If you have more than one linear polarizer of the same size, they can be used as an ND filter and an extinction filter for fades to black. I'm assuming that most folks here probably already know this, but I'll go ahead and mention it anyway, just in case some may not. If you stack two linear polarizers together, rotating one of them will dim the scene until it goes completely black. So you have total control over exposure that way.
So what I'm getting at is this: it's not just the brand or type of polarizer -- it's knowing how they work in order to get the best use out of them. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kypfer
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 Posts: 513 Location: Jersey C.I.
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kypfer wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
A well-known reason for using a polarizer is to eliminate glare and reflections. However, this does not occur with all materials. A second rule of polarization is that reflections off metal are not affected by a polarizer. The reason is that the light that is reflected off bright metal is already polarized, so the polarizer has no effect. |
No doubt someone will give me good reason why I'm wrong, but I remember being taught that it was polarised light that could be cancelled out by a polarising filter, such as that reflected from water or glass, but that the reflection from metal was unpolarised so there was always some reflection that'd get through the filter, whichever way you turned it
FWIW, I do use two linear polarisers as an adjustable neutral density filter ... a little fiddly when they both try to turn at once and especially if there's a lens hood in the way, but the results can be worth it. I've been given to understand if you try using two circularly polarised filters in this configuration the results can be a little "weird", but I've not tried. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16497 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
I would go for a good brand, here in Germany B+W but HOYA and Nikon should have decent ones.
They are not always very neutral, so go and do some tests first!! _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
kypfer wrote: |
cooltouch wrote: |
A well-known reason for using a polarizer is to eliminate glare and reflections. However, this does not occur with all materials. A second rule of polarization is that reflections off metal are not affected by a polarizer. The reason is that the light that is reflected off bright metal is already polarized, so the polarizer has no effect. |
No doubt someone will give me good reason why I'm wrong, but I remember being taught that it was polarised light that could be cancelled out by a polarising filter, such as that reflected from water or glass, but that the reflection from metal was unpolarised so there was always some reflection that'd get through the filter, whichever way you turned it
|
You could very well be right. I'm having to dredge up memories from a physics class I took some 38 years ago. Maybe somebody with a stronger physics background than mine can weigh in on this.
Klaus, I agree with your filter choices, especially B+W. In addition to Nikon and Hoya, Tiffen also made (or makes?) good filters, as did or does Canon, and even Cokin if you want to put up with its filter holders. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/
Last edited by cooltouch on Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10463 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Even name brand filters are graded from economy to best. Selecting good name brand filter is not much easier than selecting from entire marketplace. Lol.
What are some good tests or experiments to differentiate quality of filters? _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kypfer
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 Posts: 513 Location: Jersey C.I.
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kypfer wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
What are some good tests or experiments to differentiate quality of filters? |
My quick "is it a polariser or not" test is to hold the filter in front of a flat-screen TV or computer monitor and rotate it. A "good" filter will cause the image from the screen to completely "black out" at a specific point in it's rotation. This is the point where the filter is exactly at 90 degrees to the built-in filter of the screen.
For whatever reason, some filters don't completely "black out" the screen image, these appear to have slightly less effect on the sky as well, so, in my book, they're less desirable, but maybe that's just my eyes playing tricks. I've never bothered to put a camera on a tripod and take a series of pictures in rapid succession with different filters to demonstrate or otherwise that there is actually a difference photographically ... mostly because I don't have more than one or two filters in any given size |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
What are some good tests or experiments to differentiate quality of filters? |
One test I discovered accidentally was due to some very poor performance I was getting from a 400mm f/6.3 telephoto. I was puzzled by this until I noticed it had an off brand UV filter hanging off the front. When I removed the filter, the lens's performance improved dramatically. So, if I were to take this "test" to the next level, the way to proceed would be to try various filters on the front of this same lens and then observe the results. Doesn't really have to be any more complicated than that unless one wants to analyze exactly how each filter affects performance. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 901 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
kypfer wrote: |
cooltouch wrote: |
A well-known reason for using a polarizer is to eliminate glare and reflections. However, this does not occur with all materials. A second rule of polarization is that reflections off metal are not affected by a polarizer. The reason is that the light that is reflected off bright metal is already polarized, so the polarizer has no effect. |
No doubt someone will give me good reason why I'm wrong, but I remember being taught that it was polarised light that could be cancelled out by a polarising filter, such as that reflected from water or glass, but that the reflection from metal was unpolarised so there was always some reflection that'd get through the filter, whichever way you turned it
FWIW, I do use two linear polarisers as an adjustable neutral density filter ... a little fiddly when they both try to turn at once and especially if there's a lens hood in the way, but the results can be worth it. I've been given to understand if you try using two circularly polarised filters in this configuration the results can be a little "weird", but I've not tried. |
I doubt anyone can give a good reason why you're wrong - because you're not!
I have played with multiple CPLs - You can use 2 CPLs to make a variable ND, just use them front to front. You get really weird effects if you use them back to back. Both in the normal orientation should give similar results to a single CPL but with the brightness reduced by around 50%. Combining filters front to front & back to back is considerably more fiddly than just stacking normal filters
Variable NDs are usually made from a linear polarizer followed by a CPL. This gives the same effect as 2 linear but then outputs non polarised light so AF & metering are still reliable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|