|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Circular Polarizers
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 $150...but I'm willing to go without the filter if it means saving up for a better one...but let's not get too crazy.  Sep 13 13 02:33 pm Link There is a great Hoya 77mm polarizer, basically it's the most expensive one, and the only one in the line up that will really give you an amazing result. I guess it's about 170$, 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 Christopher Hartman wrote: As confused as I am by that statement, I would recommend you go with the B+W. Sep 13 13 05:37 pm Link 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 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 The newer XS version means that it is slimmer plus it is also nano coated. Sep 13 13 05:56 pm Link ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: +1 Sep 13 13 06:10 pm Link MMDesign wrote: I meant, I had a 77mm circular polarizer from B+W that I probably bought from B&H Photo. Sep 16 13 09:16 am Link Instinct Images wrote: My two lenses are both 77mm. Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR1. Sep 16 13 09:19 am Link ChanStudio - OtherSide 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. Sep 16 13 09:21 am Link 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 $0.02 Ciao Stefano www.stefanobrunesci.com Sep 16 13 09:50 am Link Trust me, it has to be in 150-200$ 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 That Italian Guy 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. Sep 16 13 09:55 am Link M Pandolfo Photography wrote: +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 Christopher Hartman 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. Sep 16 13 06:17 pm Link Marumi DHG CPL Sep 16 13 06:24 pm Link 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 Patrick Shipstad wrote: 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 Christopher Hartman wrote: Hoya HD. Excellent anti reflection and easy clean coatings and transmits more light than standard polarisers: Sep 17 13 05:25 am Link ChanStudio wrote: Why would that be the case? Sep 17 13 08:40 am Link Patrick Shipstad wrote: I do want some ND filters...but ouch!! Sep 17 13 08:41 am Link Tom Shao wrote: Hold on a minute, it appears people have overlooked the most important part of this post.. Sep 17 13 08:45 am Link Christopher Hartman 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. Sep 17 13 10:17 am Link ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: It is called Stiction. Sep 17 13 11:38 am Link 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 guess you saw this? http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage. … saas&iht=n Sep 22 13 05:18 pm Link 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 FabulousFotos wrote: Not a good idea even if they are both top quality ones. FabulousFotos wrote: If you 'shot narrower' then you'd avoid the vignetting and the need to crop. Sep 23 13 12:02 am Link ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: 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 |
