Forums > Photography Talk > Circular Polarizers

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

I need a recommendation.

I do not recall what I used to have before it was stolen.

It was a B+W 77mm.  It cost me about $120-130.  Pretty certain I bought it from B&H.

B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Filter

I'm pretty certain this is NOT what I had.  I'd likely remember the Kaeseman name.  What is it and is it any good?

B+W 77mm Circular Polarizer Slim MRC Filter

I have a feeling this is what I got.  Considering I bought my original in...about 2005 or 06, the price increase is probably not that surprising. I probably chose it for the slim design.

Nikon 77mm Circular Polarizer II Filter

I could always go brand loyal with Nikon so that my carpets match the drapes...

What else from MM experts should I consider? 

Budget?  I'd really like to NOT spend more than $150...but I'm willing to go without the filter if it means saving up for a better one...but let's not get too crazy. big_smile

Sep 13 13 02:33 pm Link

Photographer

Jakov Markovic

Posts: 1128

Belgrade, Central Serbia, Serbia

There is a great Hoya 77mm polarizer, basically it's the most expensive one, and the only one in the line up that will really give you an amazing result. I guess it's about 170$, there is the one that sits below it that costs around 130$, and id ain't worth your money.

Sep 13 13 03:35 pm Link

Photographer

MMDesign

Posts: 18647

Louisville, Kentucky, US

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I do not recall what I used to have before it was stolen.

It was a B+W 77mm.  It cost me about $120-130.  Pretty certain I bought it from B&H.

As confused as I am by that statement, I would recommend you go with the B+W.

Sep 13 13 05:37 pm Link

Photographer

ChanStudio - OtherSide

Posts: 5340

Alpharetta, Georgia, US

I have the B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Filter.

I prefer B+W over the Hoya.

Sep 13 13 05:47 pm Link

Photographer

Instinct Images

Posts: 22653

San Diego, California, US

IIRC the slim ones are designed for lens where a regular CP will cause some vignetting. I think that it's more common with wide-angle lens and wide zooms than telephotos so it depends on what lens you plan to use it on.

I guess the question is: How often do you use it? Is it worth spending a little more to get better results?

Sep 13 13 05:48 pm Link

Photographer

ChanStudio

Posts: 9183

Alpharetta, Georgia, US

The newer XS version means that it is slimmer plus it is also nano coated.

Sep 13 13 05:56 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, US

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
I have the B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Filter.

I prefer B+W over the Hoya.

+1

Sep 13 13 06:10 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

MMDesign wrote:

As confused as I am by that statement, I would recommend you go with the B+W.

I meant, I had a 77mm circular polarizer from B+W that I probably bought from B&H Photo.

The problem is, I recall spending about $120-$130 on that filter.  But I do not recall the actual filter I got. I only know that it was multi-coated and "slim".

Sep 16 13 09:16 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

Instinct Images wrote:
IIRC the slim ones are designed for lens where a regular CP will cause some vignetting. I think that it's more common with wide-angle lens and wide zooms than telephotos so it depends on what lens you plan to use it on.

I guess the question is: How often do you use it? Is it worth spending a little more to get better results?

My two lenses are both 77mm.  Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR1.

Since I am not in an immediate need for it, I can save and wait.

How often?  when I shoot at the beach, I use it to help with getting deeper blues in the sky and ocean...so fairly often.  But I've managed plenty of times without it just fine.

it's more of a WANT to have vs a MUST have.

Too bad best buy doesn't carry this stuff as I just got a $130 gift card.

Sep 16 13 09:19 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
I have the B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Filter.

I prefer B+W over the Hoya.

that was the general consensus when I asked on DPReview years ago as to which brand to go with.  The vast majority said to go with B+W.

My best guess is, that $130 filter is now the $160 one...sigh.  Not like an extra $30 is gonna break me.

Sep 16 13 09:21 am Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

Although I shoot Canon I actually have a 77mm Nikon CPL for my 24-105L and have no complaints about it.

There's not much else to say really. It does its job. Pretty sure I used it for my current avatar.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Sep 16 13 09:50 am Link

Photographer

Jakov Markovic

Posts: 1128

Belgrade, Central Serbia, Serbia

Trust me, it has to be in 150-200$ range to give that "makes sky and water go black to dark blue" effect. Better to spend 30$ more and get a real deal, then waste your 130$.

Sep 16 13 09:52 am Link

Photographer

Tom LA

Posts: 174

Walnut, California, US

That Italian Guy wrote:
Although I shoot Canon I actually have a 77mm Nikon CPL for my 24-105L and have no complaints about it.

Funny, I actually recommended a canon uv filter for my brother's nikon kit lens.  It was rebadged and a few dollars cheaper.  Just like kirkland vodka is actually grey goose.  smile

Sep 16 13 09:55 am Link

Photographer

fussgangerfoto

Posts: 149

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:

+1

+2 for B+W and B&H (love those guys). Of course, B+W makes a half-dozen 77mm CPLs, ranging from $99 to $269. I settled on the 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Slim MRC Filter.

Sep 16 13 05:10 pm Link

Photographer

ChanStudio

Posts: 9183

Alpharetta, Georgia, US

Christopher Hartman wrote:
that was the general consensus when I asked on DPReview years ago as to which brand to go with.  The vast majority said to go with B+W.

My best guess is, that $130 filter is now the $160 one...sigh.  Not like an extra $30 is gonna break me.

The slim version you listed in original page has aluminum mount while the non slim has brass mount.  Brass are heavier and has higher quality.  Aluminum could be a bitch to remove the filter from the lens.



  Sounds to me like the $116 version is better deal if you don't need the slim version (for wide angle lens) plus it is Brass.

Sep 16 13 06:17 pm Link

Photographer

Pix by Jim

Posts: 368

Stockton, California, US

Marumi DHG CPL

Sep 16 13 06:24 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Shipstad

Posts: 4622

Burbank, California, US

I use the singh-ray thin mount variable ND and I love it!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/6 … utral.html

Sep 17 13 03:08 am Link

Photographer

photoimager

Posts: 4906

Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom

Patrick Shipstad wrote:
I use the singh-ray thin mount variable ND and I love it!

The OP is asking about a polariser, not a variable ND. Whilst it is true that variable NDs tend to use polarising layers they are not the same thing.

Sep 17 13 05:20 am Link

Photographer

photoimager

Posts: 4906

Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom

Christopher Hartman wrote:
What else from MM experts should I consider?

Hoya HD. Excellent anti reflection and easy clean coatings and transmits more light than standard polarisers:
http://www.hoyafilter.com/hoya/products … ltercirpl/
http://www.hoyafilter.com/pictures/F0000019-transmission.gif

I've no idea of the price Stateside but, since the £ price is within your range and £ / $ prices in numbers as opposed to conversion are frequently similar, I'd expect it to be within budget.

Sep 17 13 05:25 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

ChanStudio wrote:
The slim version you listed in original page has aluminum mount while the non slim has brass mount.  Brass are heavier and has higher quality.  Aluminum could be a bitch to remove the filter from the lens.

Why would that be the case?

Interesting because, particularly when I had it on my 70-200 lens, it sometimes required some effort to remove.  I never had an issue removing from my 17-55 lens though...so I figured it was because the 70-200 has a rubber (seal?) at the end of the lens and it cause it to sort of grip the filter.  Annoying to say the least.

Sep 17 13 08:40 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

Patrick Shipstad wrote:
I use the singh-ray thin mount variable ND and I love it!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/6 … utral.html

I do want some ND filters...but ouch!!

Sep 17 13 08:41 am Link

Photographer

DougBPhoto

Posts: 38593

Portland, Oregon, US

Tom Shao wrote:

Funny, I actually recommended a canon uv filter for my brother's nikon kit lens.  It was rebadged and a few dollars cheaper.  Just like kirkland vodka is actually grey goose.  smile

Hold on a minute, it appears people have overlooked the most important part of this post..

say WHAT ???

Sep 17 13 08:45 am Link

Photographer

ChanStudio - OtherSide

Posts: 5340

Alpharetta, Georgia, US

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Why would that be the case?

Interesting because, particularly when I had it on my 70-200 lens, it sometimes required some effort to remove.  I never had an issue removing from my 17-55 lens though...so I figured it was because the 70-200 has a rubber (seal?) at the end of the lens and it cause it to sort of grip the filter.  Annoying to say the least.

Lens Aluminum thread with filter Aluminum thread sometimes can be sticky to unscrew (removing).  I don't have much problem with Brass filter but do have issue with Aluminum filter threads. 

Aluminum also tends to be softer and bent easier than brass.

Sep 17 13 10:17 am Link

Photographer

photoimager

Posts: 4906

Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
Lens Aluminum thread with filter Aluminum thread sometimes can be sticky to unscrew (removing).  I don't have much problem with Brass filter but do have issue with Aluminum filter threads. 

Aluminum also tends to be softer and bent easier than brass.

It is called Stiction.

Sep 17 13 11:38 am Link

Photographer

Jeremy DuBrul

Posts: 239

Chicago, Illinois, US

http://www.2filter.com/index.htm

Solid pricing and good advice overall on filter shopping.

My TOP choice are B+W, Rodenstock, Heliopan and Nikon. Marumi is very good if you are on a budget.

Sep 22 13 04:53 pm Link

Photographer

ELiffmann

Posts: 1414

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US

Sep 22 13 05:18 pm Link

Photographer

FabulousFotos

Posts: 107

Longmont, Colorado, US

Since I'm reluctant to expose my $1000 zoom to dust, scratches, or anything else, I always add my polarizer to my UV filter. So I use the slim design to minimize vignetting. Then I shoot wider and crop the corners later.

Sep 22 13 05:28 pm Link

Photographer

photoimager

Posts: 4906

Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom

FabulousFotos wrote:
I always add my polarizer to my UV filter.

Not a good idea even if they are both top quality ones.

FabulousFotos wrote:
Then I shoot wider and crop the corners later.

If you 'shot narrower' then you'd avoid the vignetting and the need to crop.

Sep 23 13 12:02 am Link

Photographer

Traditional Curmudgeon

Posts: 598

Chicago, Illinois, US

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:

Lens Aluminum thread with filter Aluminum thread sometimes can be sticky to unscrew (removing).  I don't have much problem with Brass filter but do have issue with Aluminum filter threads. 

Aluminum also tends to be softer and bent easier than brass.

In general, identical metals (aluminum on aluminum, stainless on stainless, etc.) tend to "gall" or "cold-weld" when threaded together tightly without an anti-seize lubricating layer (such as used with spark plugs in cars).  Essentially, the aluminum atoms are identical and may forget which member they belong to when in intimate contact.  Brass on aluminum or brass on steel are safer combinations.

Sep 23 13 06:18 am Link