Circular Polarizing filter?

[90sShooter]

I was contemplating getting a polarizing filter for my new 100mm macro instead of a standard UV filter, to protect the lense. I will be using the lense a lot for tank shots, insect shots, and so forth... maybe the occasional ocean shots (here in sunny so cal ). What are some pros and cons of the polarizing filter? Also was just reading something saying that you rotate the filter to change the affect of the polarization affect? is this true? so do you always have to mess with the filter when shooting? that doesn't sound like fun...


Also what is a good brand for filters? I got a free Tiffen filter with one of my lenses and it seems to work fine.. How much will the brands differ in quality?

 

[Maxxumless]

Why would you want a polarizing filter for? Just curious. If you are going to try to use a polarizing filter for macro work, don't unless you have a lot of light - even then, I don't see much benefit from using one.

If you are set on a filter then the B+W is best way to go. I use B+W polorizers, ND and clear when working on beaches, deserts or while its raining - but thats it.

Here is some info for ya:
http://www.great-landscape-photography.com/polarizing-filter.html

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

The polarizing filter is used to change the image. You get a different picture with and without the filter. Think of it this way. You are wearing a pair of bifocals. Instead of one half of the glasses being a stronger prescription than the other, half of the glasses are sun glasses while the other half are just regular. Sun glasses are just polarized glasses...

For protection I refuse to use any UV filter. I would especially refuse to use one on a macro lens. My protection is a lens cap. This is my opinion, but my conclusion is common sense.

The 100mm macro is a VERY sharp lens. You could compare it to...a starfire glass reef tank. If you buy a starfire tank would you cover it with a sheet of Plexiglas glass to keep scratches away? No of course not, it defeats the point! The point of the macro lens is magnification, but the claim to fame of that lens is being tack sharp. I know I wouldn't cover it with a cheaply made window.

 

[90sShooter]

makes sense...

I was just talking to the guy at the camera shop and he said to use a polarize filter when shooting water to reduce glare... also the sample pics they show you on the box shows nice vivid colors with the filter on compared to not (I know its mostly marketing). Forget about the 100mm.. I will leave that uncovered. But would you still not recommend using one to take pictures of the ocean and such?

 

[dendronepthya]

First off, let me share these two pics. They are both actually the same tank, shot with the Canon 100mm macro with the B+W Kasemann Circular Polarizer. The first shot is with the polarizer rotated "improperly" so that it isn't removing the reflection on the water's surface:

The second image is with the polarizer rotated 90-degrees which eliminated the reflection:

Will you need this sort of filter? I'm not sure. It depends. I purchased it because I do almost all of my macro photography in a greenhouse, and I have to deal will sorts of crazy light scattering and reflections. It does a great job of eliminating first order scattering (clear reflections) and is moderately effective at eliminating secondary light scattering (haze).

The downside to a circular polarizer is that they are very dark, so you lose something like 2 stops of light. When I shoot, I have to use a tripod and rather lengthy exposure times.

 

[Maxxumless]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14118063#post14118063 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 90sShooter
makes sense...

I was just talking to the guy at the camera shop and he said to use a polarize filter when shooting water to reduce glare... also the sample pics they show you on the box shows nice vivid colors with the filter on compared to not (I know its mostly marketing). Forget about the 100mm.. I will leave that uncovered. But would you still not recommend using one to take pictures of the ocean and such?

Oh yes, use one for surface shots of the ocean, just be aware of a few things. 1) Try to position yourself 90 degrees from the sun - this angle is optimal polarizing effect. 2) Make sure it is turned the way you want it to be - one way will show every reflection while the other will remove them and 3) Be aware that the polarizing effect will be uneven.

 

[joyfnp]

getting a good polarizing filter is MUCH more expensive filter than a UV or a skylight filter to protect the lens. If you're shooting landscapes like ocean shots, though, they are very nice to help make clouds and sky really crisp and pretty. You twist the filter to adjust how saturated you want the sky, etc. It also affects the amount of light that goes thru the lens, too.

Hoya made my polarizing filter.

 

[90sShooter]

OK maybe I will not get one... thanks guys for the information! Saved me a couple bucks :thumbsup:

 

[xtm]

Austin.... It depends on where and what you are shooting. Inside museums and public aquarias I usually take them off as the polarizer takes a few stops of light from an already dark scene, especially when flash photography is not allowed. However there are times when polarizers are an absolute MUST.. for instance when doing top down shots:

without a polarizer

with polarizer

They're not panacea and they will not make you compose better photos, but they can reveal some details that are otherwise difficult to reveal in certain situations. They can make blue skies bluer, remove reflections, and alter light. It can add or remove certain dark gradients on ocean shots.

I use a cheap $60 Tiffen circular polarizer. Since I've never used a more high end one w/ "coatings", I am not sure if they make a difference. I am happy with mine and they do make a difference.

As an added bonus, it protects the lens' front element from projectiles like tiny rocks (for example when I shoot BMX races). I'd rather break a $60 filter rather than a $1K lens (Nikkor 17-55 f2.8)

hope that made sense..lol