Ok we have some smart members on here so please recommend a decent polarizing filter

[spudhead]

ok so I need a decent polarizing filter to help reduce bright sunlight for my travel short zooms one 67mm and the other 72mm so can I use stepping rings? the rings I have I think so let me know what you know

 

[spudhead]

I recently bought a Hoya NXT Plus 67mm for my Tamron(s). I wanted a 77mm for my 24-105 but they didn't have any, so I took a chance on a brand I'd not heard of but got good reviews called "Aurora-Aperture Power CPL". It uses Gorilla Glass for break and scratch resistance. Cost was $165 for the pair.

Both have a low filter factor, the Hoya is less than 1 stop, can't recall the Aurora but it was low, maybe 1 stop. No apparent image degradation with either, both do a very good job. I thought if using a polarizer worked out as hoped then maybe some of the stupid expensive ones would be next, but after using these now on thousands of shots over the last few weeks there's no reason to change.

Thanks Tim reply, I dont expect many replies

 

[spudhead]

I added to it while you were reading, check it again.

I think Hoodless uses them quite regularly, he'll probaby have a recommendation.

OH, BTW, if you buy one of the uber thin versions you may not be able to use your lens cap. The models I mentioned both allow use of caps and hoods.

cool sort of what I thought, I have had them in the past but not good ones and that sort of put me off, but as with all things sometimes you learn the hard way, buy once and better

 

[Landshark99]

I have great luck with B+W and Breakthrough Photography PL filters, on longer lenses thick or thin mounts do not matter but on super wides I like very thin mounts. What one gets with the better filters is usually better mounts, better glass and especially neutral color glass. A lot of PL filters add a color cast, also recommend circular PLs over linear ones. The only issue with using use one filter and step down rings is you will more than likely not be able to use the lens hood now on that smaller lens ring. I used to use PLs all the times but now more so only on specific images. They other way to reduce exposure on very bright days is with ND filters or ND graduating filters, with the latter you can darken the sky and keep the foreground exposure.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I have had K&F Concepts variable ND and CPL filters for a while, bought them because the price was right. I haven't had any issues thus far. note, they cannot be used in conjunction with lens hoods or caps (I think that's normal though).

Picture is worth a thousand words though, so here are some examples. No weird artifacts in the photo and the polarizing effect is evident.
Before CPL:

• E 17-70mm F2.8 B070
• 22.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 100

After:

• E 17-70mm F2.8 B070
• 17.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 100

Another example:
Before CPL:

• E 17-70mm F2.8 B070
• 21.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/400 sec
• ISO 100

After:

• E 17-70mm F2.8 B070
• 21.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 100

The differences are there, but subtle. There is also a slight change to color cast, but I don't have the experience to say whether that's normal or not.

 

[spudhead]

I have had K&F Concepts variable ND and CPL filters for a while, bought them because the price was right. I haven't had any issues thus far. note, they cannot be used in conjunction with lens hoods or caps (I think that's normal though).

Picture is worth a thousand words though, so here are some examples. No weird artifacts in the photo and the polarizing effect is evident.
Before CPL:
View attachment 47588
After:
View attachment 47589

Another example:
Before CPL:
View attachment 47590
After:
View attachment 47591

The differences are there, but subtle. There is also a slight change to color cast, but I don't have the experience to say whether that's normal or not.

Thanks Chris for reply

 

[spudhead]

I have great luck with B+W and Breakthrough Photography PL filters, on longer lenses thick or thin mounts do not matter but on super wides I like very thin mounts. What one gets with the better filters is usually better mounts, better glass and especially neutral color glass. A lot of PL filters add a color cast, also recommend circular PLs over linear ones. The only issue with using use one filter and step down rings is you will more than likely not be able to use the lens hood now on that smaller lens ring. I used to use PLs all the times but now more so only on specific images. They other way to reduce exposure on very bright days is with ND filters or ND graduating filters, with the latter you can darken the sky and keep the foreground exposure.

Thanks for info Bob

 

[iamdlewis]

I got a Manfrotto 77mm for my 24-105/100-400 from their Outlet store and it seem nice. I really don't have anything to compare it too.

I have a couple K&F ND filters which are nice too and they probably make a nice CPF

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I didn't realise that Manfrotto make them.

I use the Kenko Celeste ones which I find to be really good.

 

[spudhead]

I didn't realise that Manfrotto make them.

I use the Kenko Celeste ones which I find to be really good.

Thankyou Clint for info , I guess as with many things Manfrotto may have filters made for them

 

[spudhead]

It's not. Both of mine are usable with both caps and hoods. Most of the really thin ones (designed to reduced vignetting) can't take a cap. Research!

YEP Tim I think even the ones I had before allowed hood use and cap

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

It's not. Both of mine are usable with both caps and hoods. Most of the really thin ones (designed to reduced vignetting) can't take a cap. Research!

I stand corrected.
I have 67mm filters, but use step-up rings for many of my lenses which are smaller than 67mm. THIS is the reason my lens hoods and caps don't fit.
I just tried to fit filter, hood, and cap on my Tamron which is the same filter thread size (so 67mm for both) and both the hood and cap fit with CPL in place.

 

[spudhead]

I stand corrected.
I have 67mm filters, but use step-up rings for many of my lenses which are smaller than 67mm. THIS is the reason my lens hoods and caps don't fit.
I just tried to fit filter, hood, and cap on my Tamron which is the same filter thread size (so 67mm for both) and both the hood and cap fit with CPL in place.

It is all good Chris I think we were all on the same page really

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

It is all good Chris I think we were all on the same page really

Heh its all good mate, I learned something new today lol. But I'll probably still go hoodless (Clint style) since I wouldn't be able to adjust CPL or VND if the hood were on.

 

[spudhead]

Heh its all good mate, I learned something new today lol. But I'll probably still go hoodless (Clint style) since I wouldn't be able to adjust CPL or VND if the hood were on.

The a-mount lens had a section in the hood that could be opened with your finger tip to adjust filters

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

The a-mount lens had a section in the hood that could be opened with your finger tip to adjust filters

That's a clever feature!

 

[spudhead]

That's a clever feature!

I guess people stopped using filters so much hence the change in hood design

 

[spudhead]

Actually, you can! I found I can easily reach the knurled ring with my fingertip and rotate it even with the hood on. Just make sure you always rotate in the tightening direction, I accidentally unscrewed one most of the way by just moving it back and forth.

the big a-mount primes like the 300 g 2.8 have the filters in the rear and the polarizer has its own mount with a knurled wheel on it to adjust, but that filter way back when was £300.00 +

 

[spudhead]

I've seen those before but never had one. Closest I got is the 500/8 reflex with the rear ND filter.

It really didn't take long to sort out though. The biggest problem was figuring out how to get my finger on the ring without touching the glass. I think it helps because both hoods are tulip style and it's not a far reach. Not sure how well it would work with a deep solid hood.

The tulip style hood as you call it was designed to allow the the lens to be used on crop bodies in the early days I think

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

That's a clever feature!

I remember hearing the hood on the 24-70mm GMII has a door so you can adjust the polariser. I'd check mine but I want to keep it brand new and untouched...

 

[spudhead]

It's for wider lenses too. The Sigma 100-400 had a solid lens hood, but the Tamron needs the tulip because of the wider 50mm short end.

ok interesting I did not know that, once the the a9iii spec and price is out, I would like some new glass if funds allow so maybe a Tamron I have never had one as I said before I dont even know why

 

[spudhead]

I remember hearing the hood on the 24-70mm GMII has a door so you can adjust the polariser. I'd check mine but I want to keep it brand new and untouched...

The a-mount zeiss 24-70 2.8 g2 has the smallest hood you can imagine it may as well not be on the lens

 

[Landshark99]

a number of Sony hoods have finger door to move a PL around from the side, but so many do not ever use their hoods so probably never noticed

 

[spudhead]

a number of Sony hoods have finger door to move a PL around from the side, but so many do not ever use their hoods so probably never noticed

I only know one Sony shooter that claims not to use his lens hoods

 

[spudhead]

I only know one Sony shooter that claims not to use his lens hoods

For sale as new in pack SOOONY lens hoods

 

[Landshark99]

I remember hearing the hood on the 24-70mm GMII has a door so you can adjust the polariser. I'd check mine but I want to keep it brand new and untouched...

Just so you will not have to look in the box yes the 24-70 GMII hood has a finger door

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Just so you will not have to look in the box yes the 24-70 GMII hood has a finger door

Cheers mate.

 

[Landshark99]

I only know one Sony shooter that claims not to use his lens hoods

Never get why not using a hood is a plus, most even store backward.