What brand of Circular Polarising filter is best??

[joshuag]

Hi. I have a Canon 17-85mm zoom lens and I lost my Kenko Wideband polarising filter during a shoot on Saturday. I looked everywhere but no luck. It cost me $124. Anyway I need to replace it. I was just wondering what polarising filters are affordable but still great quality if possible (should I stick with Kenko). I've looked into Hoya, which I think are the same as Kenko. I can't believe my filter fell off without me realising. Argh.

Thanks

Josh

[Riverlander]

Fell off? I have never even had one come loose. In fact I make sure I always turn them anti-clockwise (looking from the front of the lens) but that does tend to make them tight.
Best? or Best Value? I think B+W MRC may be the best, but the Hoya Super Pro 1 are also fine fileters.

[Tannin]

B+W are the best, at least the best that I have ever used, but they are quite expensive. This is the one you want: http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/prod110.htm - the B+W Circular Polariser Kasemann MRC filter. At $222 it's more than the top-line Hoya (I have one of those too) but it is worth it. Compared to the Hoya, it has significantly better saturation control and produces a more natural looking result. The solid brass ring is nice to have also - less prone to getting stick.

Best value? Dunno. Strikes me that the best value product is the one you have least regrets and fewest second thoughts about.

[joshuag]

Thanks for the advice. Yeah I must have made the mistake of not turning it this time. Stupid of me. A lesson for next time.

[Wayne]

B+W are the best, at least the best that I have ever used, but they are quite expensive. This is the one you want: http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/prod110.htm - the B+W Circular Polariser Kasemann MRC filter.


Agreed, I have the slim Kasemann for my 17-35 f2.8. It is THE best and although Mainline is the local Oz distributor, I recently got one from the USA for AUD$207 (77mm though) landed here in 6 days Vs the $305+ shipping Mainline wanted for it..

[arubaato]

I was about to order a B+W slim MRC CPL, but noticed that the slim version doesn't have filter threads in the front of the filter. That means I won't be able to put on my cokin ND grad holder if I have the CPL on.

Do you guys find that to be a problem? or do you not use CPL and ND Grad filters together?

[judygreen]

i am curious about this question as well. I have had many people that u must have a filter on all lenses to protect the front glass piece from getting scratched.

[Ray Heath]

G'day (again) Jude

They are probably all pretty much the same. I've used Hoya and cheap imports like Jessops.

Main problem these days is most likely what is available and from where. There are few camera shops left.

As for filters for lens protection, I always advise my students that they are worthwnile. But certainly not a polariser, they lose you around 2 stops of light and really only work outdooors in bright sun.

For lens protection get a UV or a Skylight filter. These used to be important in the older days of film but now don't actually do much more than lens protection.

Ray

[Ray Heath]

Agreed, I have the slim Kasemann for my 17-35 f2.8. It is THE best and although Mainline is the local Oz distributor, I recently got one from the USA for AUD$207 (77mm though) landed here in 6 days Vs the $305+ shipping Mainline wanted for it..

Hi Wayne

Your kidding, surely these prices are wrong.

Ray

ps nice avatar, not

[Tannin]

Hi Judy.

There are many sorts of filter, with as many different purposes. The main ones are:

Clear. Clear, skylight, and UV filters are purely for protection of the lens. Cheap ones do really horrible things to your image quality. Good ones only degrade quality a small amount - but all filters reduce picture quality to at least some extent. In general, it's not worth putting a clear filter on any lens worth less than ~$1000 - a good filter will cost you the best part of $200, so you'd be mad to put one on a $130 lens. For lenses over $1000, protection makes more economic sense, but do you really want to degrade the picture quality of that $1000 lens by putting a filter on it?
Coloured. Coloured filters used to be used to compensate for different sorts of lighting back in film days, before digital. They are still used for special effects by some people. No-one really knows why. (But Arthur will be along in about three milliseconds time to tell you in exquisite detail.)
Plain ND. These block out a certain amount of the light (measured in stops) but don't change the picture in any other way. They are mainly used to allow very long shutter speeds for special effects, such as those horrible blurry, unnatural-looking waterfall shots you see littering the landscape forum.
Graduated ND. These are clear at the bottom, graduating to a shade of grey at the top. They are used to reduce the excessive brightness of the sky without making the foreground too dark.
Polarising. These work like Polaroid sunglasses to block some light but let other light through. Objects (the ground, a tree, a human, clouds) generally reflect light with random polarisation, while the sky and some other things (notably flat water) tend to reflect light in a particular orientation. A polarising filter lets you take advantage of that to deepen blue sky, brighten clouds, eliminate annoying reflections from a lake, and so on. Like all filters, it is a special purpose tool and not something you use all the time.


Normal filters have a thread so that you can screw another filter on top. This causes vignetting problems with very wide angle lenses. For these, you use a slim-line filter which, because it doesn't have the extra thread, works properly on wide-angle. That's what a slim line filter is - one without the extra thread.

Cheapo filters can do really, really horrible things to your images. Avoid them like poison.

[Tannin]

Example: a polarising filter used incorrectly to illustrate what it does. The sky at left, normal appearance on this bright, warm day. At right, darkened by the polariser.

http://tannin.net.au/other/ap2/0911/100324-171746-.jpg

(Actually, I quite often use them incorrectly because I like the effect. Most photographers would say that is quite wrong, but Arthur would understand.

[joshuag]

The guy at the store said polarising filters should be replaced after 8-10 months. I didn't realise this. Is this correct? I thought they would last longer than that. I ended up getting another Kenko Pro by the way.

[arthurking83]

Example:

...

(Actually, I quite often use them incorrectly because I like the effect. Most photographers would say that is quite wrong, but Arthur would understand.

Me!!?? understand??? :crzy:(a perfect example of how Tony has been an AP member for too long now!)

this is a classic example of how to best use a polariser in an incorrect manner :th3:

[Ray Heath]

G'day all

Tannin your example makes no sense given your previous post. That's an example of a polariser used incorrectly whether cheap or over priced.

Josh, some guy in some shop, selling over priced filters said what? With no explanation, and you believed him?

Ray

[Tannin]

Sigh. What did I say? Try reading my post, OK?

But to repeat myself, the point of posting that picture is to illustrate, in one shot, the difference that a polariser makes. On the left-hand side, we see an (approximately) normal sky. On the right-hand side, the deep blue of a polarised sky.

In practice, of course, you normally aim to have the polarisation effect reasonably even across the frame.

[Wayne]

Hi Wayne

Your kidding, surely these prices are wrong.

Ray

ps nice avatar, not

Ray,
No, look here>> http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/category34_1.htm

and the 67MM MRC UV I think is on sale with a few other less common B+W filters for $20-30, but most are non-MRC and the odd ball one's nobody wants.

[Ray Heath]

Yeh sorry Tannin, my bad, I lumped your post together with some others. It is a good example of what a polariser does. I'm just sceptical that an expensive model does any better than a cheaper one.

Wayne, I looked on other site and it appears you are correct in that some of these filters are expensive items. I had not considered that most here use fairly wide range zooms with large filter sizes. I prefer prime lenses. My largest filter is 58mm.

Ray

[Tannin]

No worries, Ray. It's all good.

I can shed a little light on the differences between polarisers in different price classes, however.

I have never owned a cheap polariser, but I have owned some cheap filters of other kinds, and been burned by them. It's quite common to see people having unexplained image quality problems - looks a bit like poor focis, looks a bit like camera movement issues, but it isn't either of those things. Eventuallly, you try taking the cheap filter off and Hey Presto! the problem is fixed. It happened to me quite a few years ago, and I've seen the same story play out here on AP, and on DPR, and another photography forum I used to go to. Oh, and once or twice with friends in real life too.

But CPLs, I have only owned three, all reasonably good ones. One, a mid-range Hoya, I have had for years but barely use because it's an odd size to suit my 60mm macro lens, and I don't need a CPL for it very often. I'll get more value out of the 52mm CPL now that I've got a second lens for it to go on (the Tokina 35mm macro, which I also use for landscapes quite a bit).

The second one is a 77mm Hoya which was top of the range at the time I bought it. Hoya have a new, higher-spec line as well now, which I haven't tried yet. I've used my 77mm slim Hoya for years and got to know it reasonably well. (That shot above was with the Hoya.)

And just a few months ago, I decided to try a B+W. I needed a second 77mm CPL anyway, so I decided to see if the B+W really was better. Still early days with it, but it certainly does have two advantages: (a) it is less prone to over-saturating than the cheaper one: it produces more natural-looking colours. It's a reasonably subtle difference, but quite noticable. (b) the solid brass ring is more pleasant to use than whatever the normal Hoya rings are made out of. It is smoother to turn and less prone to sticking and refusing to come off. If you put the filter on and off much - and you tend to be always fiddling with the damn thing if you use a CPL - that's actually a significant difference. Pleasant handling makes for a good mood and that makes for better photographs. Nothing worse than trying to be creative when what you really want to do is swear and throw some recalcitrant bit of gear into the lake!

The B+W is also said to have a longer-lasting coating that resists marking better. I can't comment on that. Ask again in a few years. Oh, and to whatever salesdroid moron in whatever shop said that filters only last for so many months and need to be replaced, I have a whole box of fax rolls in my shop that I'll never need. He is welcome to them anytime he needs a smoke.

Nevertheless, fllters are very easily marked and scratched (much more so than lenses) and seem to have an incredible ability to attract fingerprints. I am prepared to swear on oath that my Hoya CPL can pick up a fingerprint by teleportation from as much as 85mm away, even through the fabric of my camera bag. :eek:

So I suppose there is some sense in saying that they don't last too long, but only insofar as you have to be mega-careful with them if you want to keep them in good nick. The B+W, however, comes with a lifetime guarantee. They promise to replace it if it fails for any reason, even if you scratch it! Seems a bit weird to me, but that's what they say.

[campo]

Madsens also do B&W: http://www.madsens.com.au

Personally, I love my Marumi DHG CPLs, they're probably considered by some as "cheapo" but my clients have never complained...

i've had them for years now too...no scratches, no fading...

[arthurking83]

Even tho the OP has now bought himself another Kenko(decent brand) I'll still post this reply.

One definite negative against the cheaper Hoya(at least.. dunno about other brands??) polarisers is the quality of the ring itself, as Tony commented on the B+W filter.

I have two Purple quality(that's the colour of the packaging!) CPL's and both of them have fallen to bits and pieces at various stages in their life(possibly 3years now).
The problem exists when they get very tight on the lens and you try to unscrew them. You need to effect such a tight grip on the filter edges, that in compressing it to give enough grip to assist removing it, it falls apart.
Not a very common problem on my two (67mm)Tamron lenses, but has happened twice(in three years).
But it is a much bigger issue on the Nikon 105 Macro lens. This lens seems to latch onto the filter much more tightly than almost any other lens I have. To the point where I fear removing the polariser I have dedicated for it. I sometimes leave it on and do it at a later time when I have more time to fuss over it.
Another lens that caused me lots of grief in removing filters was the Nikon 80-200/2.8D. this lens has a rubberised front thread edge. I think this is to 'seal' the internals of the lens when attaching a filter to it.
Problem is if the filter gets tight, it's basically Locktighted to the lens, I've never had my el cheapo 77mm Hoya(15years old now!) come apart in trying desperately to remove it, but the ultra slim Uber HMC top-o-the-range Hoya I also have, is impossible to remove without using vice grips(which is what I had to do the final time I used that combo. From then on that lens only had the cheapo regular Hoya fitted.
That lens is now gone(replaced with a more modern lens) but the all the polariser filters still remain.

I think I may attempt to acquire one of those B+W's as well..... one day(soon).

[joshuag]

I didn't buy it because the other filter was over 8-10 months old. It was because the other filter somehow fell off my lens during a shoot. Not sure why as I always turn the filter to lock it.

[joshuag]

So Kenko Pro aren't that great I'm gathering.

[Tannin]

My guess, Joshuag, is that they are perfectly OK. Probably rebadged Hoyas. A lot of Kenko stuff is. But I'm only guessing.

[arubaato]

My guess, Joshuag, is that they are perfectly OK. Probably rebadged Hoyas. A lot of Kenko stuff is. But I'm only guessing.

I'm told that both Hoya and Kenko are owned by Tokina, but Hoyas are made in Japan and Kenkos are made in Philipines or Vietnam.

[Tannin]

Other way around: Hoya own both Tokina and Pentax. And a little googling soon shows that Kenko is another part of the Hoya empire.

[GlennSan]

Clear. Clear, skylight, and UV filters are purely for protection of the lens. Cheap ones do really horrible things to your image quality. Good ones only degrade quality a small amount - but all filters reduce picture quality to at least some extent. In general, it's not worth putting a clear filter on any lens worth less than ~$1000 - a good filter will cost you the best part of $200, so you'd be mad to put one on a $130 lens. For lenses over $1000, protection makes more economic sense, but do you really want to degrade the picture quality of that $1000 lens by putting a filter on it?
Cheapo filters can do really, really horrible things to your images. Avoid them like poison.

While I generally agree with your last sentence Tony, I cannot say I've been very successful in proving to myself that clear filters make any noticeable difference in image quality on my equipment for the typical usage patterns and output resolution that I use.

It's very possible that my limited testing thus far has not been detailed enough to tease out these differences just as it may be possible that my eyesight simply isn't good enough to discern the details. I don't really want to generate a debate on this specific issue but I remain curious as to how to test to show the differences in IQ in some realistic way.

What I know for a fact is that I have two young boys who are occasionally allowed to use my D100 while I am nearby and if I didn't have protection filters fitted, I'd be doing a lot of cleaning of front elements! YMMV. :D

[Tannin]

No argument from me there, Glennsan, not so far as cameras and kids go. I think there are really two key statements contained in my post, and I doubt thgat you will disagree with either one. (Or possibly they are contained in my head - whether they actually made it into my post or not is another question!)

1: Really nasty filters. If you've never observed any real difference in IQ, and you have at least done a casual AB comparison with and without, then I can 100% guarantee that you have never used the sort of filter I am talking about. You'd recognise the difference instantly if you start looking for it. Thankfully, it isn't that common. But you certainly see filters this bad around the place. They can be a little hard to wake up to if they are on a kit lens which is the only lens a beginning photographer owns. He doesn't know any different yet, and you glance at his work and just naturally assume he is a terrible photographer because all his shots are bad. It's only when you ask a few moire questions, start looking for what he needs to do better, scratch your head over why his pictures are always NQR, only then do you think to try taking the filter off and all becomes clear. I've met this a few times now. You will also see more experienced 'togs fall for the "I just bought an expensive new lens and it's no good" trick now and then. There are probably a few threads here somewhere to illustrate this. I've certainly seen it on DPR. Anyway, when you meet one of these, you will recognise it, nothing surer.

2: good quality filters. These have only a small effect on IQ. I have never really tried to spot it - I'm not much of a pixel peeper - but I recognise that every extra layer of glass reduces colour and contrast and adds potential for flare. I wouldn't expect to be able to see the difference without some very careful tests (except flare - flare shows up far more readily, especially if you are doing silly stuff like putting the sun in the frame), but I respect the theory and am happy to simply stipulate that there is some reduction in quality, however small.

[ausguitarman]

I just bought a couple of the Hoya HD CPL's :).

I'm going on holidays in a few weeks so I'll let you know how they go.

[GlennSan]

Completely agree then Tony.

In my testing I could almost convince myself that there was some extra flaring on specular highlights when the sun wasn't in frame. I didn't do sun-in-frame tests but agree with your comments about extra elements always beings a Bad Thing (tm) when shooting into the sun. I should get my lazy butt out and do some testing along that line...

[Geoff Port]

Hey arthur king,
I was doing a bit of a search regarding the best type/brand of Polarising filters to purchase and came across this thread. Having a great deal of respect for your abilities with the camera and advice given across the forum may I ask you the question.
Without spending multiple hundreds of dollars, what is the best brand and type of PF to purchase. I'm prepared to go into the low $100 mark but can't justify any more.
At present my equipment is a 60D with a VERY cheap 18-55mm f/4.5-5.6 Canon kit lens. I will be upgrading the lens very soon as I think its giving me bad results at the wider angle end of the lens.

[arthurking83]

.....
Without spending multiple hundreds of dollars, what is the best brand and type of PF to purchase. I'm prepared to go into the low $100 mark but can't justify any more ......

Damned that reminded me!

Hoya's in the $70-100 range offer good value for money.

Be weary tho, many counterfeit Hoya's on ebay too .. so if you see a Pro1 uber duper top'o'th'range Hoya going too cheaply, maybe avoid it unless you can vouch for the ebayer!

Otherwise, from what I've read.... Marumi have a DHG model CPL. I've seen them for 77mm sizes at $86 over on DWI.
(that's what I just remembered I was supposed to get a long time ago!)

I've damned clean forgot which of the Hoyas you'd want to avoid now .. they come in various coloured packages, and I THINK the purple coloured packaging in about the minimum you'd want.
I have a purple, a green and one that came in a silvery grey package(the Pro1D came in an all black packaged case).
One of them continually fell apart on me and some greasy goop constantly contaminated the glass if I tried to clean it with a cloth. I think that one was the green pack version.(??)

Anyhow, whichever one it was, it was the cheapest version, and in the end I threw it out as it was so poorly made(the metal casing part).
The one I have now(which I'm sure is the purple packaged model) is the one that I use.
(those two are the 67mm sizes I use for those lenses).
The grey silver pack model is much nicer again(that one is 62mm for one specific lens).

The two 77mm filters I have are an old(very old!) linear polariser from 20 years ago .. and a very expensive ultra slim Pro1D. The Pro1D was a waste of money and has hardly seen much use.
Not cause it's bad... simply because it's less ergonomic to use due to the very slim rotating ring.
it's harder to rotate, but that's not really the issue, you get used to it I suppose, but the real problem is not being able to mount a lens cap onto it.
it comes out very occasionally.
I have two main lenses I use these 77mm polarisers on, and when I'm packing up to get to my next location, it's PITA to have to unmount it to protect it when I drive with the camera on the front seat.

So because of this, I've been looking to get another 77mm polariser but this time a normal sized one that allows me to cover it with a lens cap.

I got the ultra slim filter as I use polarisers and grads a lot with the Sigma 10-20mm, and didn't want vignetting to be an issue.
But as I subsequently found, there's no difference in vignetting at all between the standard sized Pol with stacked GNDs and the ultra slim version with the same amount of stacked grads.

Having said that tho, the quality of the fittings(not IQ of the images tho!!) just the quality of the metal rings of the Pro1D are superb when compared to any of the cheaper model Hoyas.
It's silky smooth to turn, even tho the rotating collar is only 1mm thin and its hard to see the white locating marks.

As for any difference in IQ .. none that I noticed. I suppose if you tested vigorously, there may be a difference, but apart from a difference in colour cast between them, there is no notable difference in IQ.
I don't have a normal sized Pro1D so I can't comment on the quality of that model range, but I suspect they'd be similar to my ultra slim model.

Like I said, my next polariser will be one of those DHG Marumis.
I did read a European based test of various polarisers and these DHGs came out either second or third in overall quality compared to CPLs costing 2-3x as much.
In fact I'm sure it was third overall, the the number one polariser was actually not a circular type, but the older linear type, and because of that, it was disqualified.
A circular polariser is generally preferable tho, as linear polarisers play havoc with modern AF systems(plus they're a lot harder to find).

apologies for the essay, but these are my experiences.

[Geoff Port]

Thankyou Arthur, you have given me the info required.:th3:

[jjphoto]

http://photocornucopia.com/images/1018/IMG_3552_Meogon-1_400.jpg
VS
http://photocornucopia.com/images/1018/IMG_3618_Meogon_F8_tilt-1_400.jpg

B+W
http://photocornucopia.com/images/1018/IMG_3516_R180_5p6_BW_max%202_400.jpg
Hoya
http://photocornucopia.com/images/1018/IMG_3508_R180_5p6_Hoya_max%202_400.jpg

The above is the short version. I regularly use expensive and cheap polarising filters and was curious if there was a difference. I did some testing (with a very high resolution lens, Leica APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4) which are in the link below, the long version.

Polarizing filters, do they reduce image quality? (http://photocornucopia.com/1018.html)

JJ

[richardb]

Heliopan filters are not bad at all.