| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2006 10:45:12 AM · #1 |
woohoo, it's Xmas big time here, now that i've arrived in New York.
One of my prezzies to myself is my Tokina 12-24. Now, I need a basic UV protecting filter, as well as a polarizer.
What is the difference between a linear and circular polarizing filter?
Is it ok to just get the $30 linear polarizing filter, or should I spend $200+ on a thin B+W circular polarizing filter? |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 10:56:57 AM · #2 |
i think circular polarizers are for AF, so if you plan on using your lens in auto focus you'll need a circular one :) i think
edit: but you can get them for much less than $200, quality varies obviously though, others might be in a better position to advise on that
Message edited by author 2006-12-10 10:59:01. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 10:57:53 AM · #3 |
The linear polarizer is cheaper, but, it will interfere with your AF system.
You can use one if you don't mind manual focusing.
The thin filters are designed to not vignette with wide angle lenses. In any case, it would be a good idea to check if a particular filter vignettes or not with your lens. You may or may not need the thin one.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2006 11:07:39 AM · #4 |
That's very helpful...thanks so much.
I think, given the price difference, I'll be ok with manual focus, for the odd occasion I need to polarize my wide angle shots. It's just to deepen the blue sky, with those beach shots and landscapes I'll be taking, so manual is fine.
Thanks again. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 11:54:14 AM · #5 |
Always get a circular one. The linear ones might not work with some cameras that use polarization as part of the viewfinder system.
Make sure it is of a good company and does not have a color cast.. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 12:26:07 PM · #6 |
| Ditch the UV filter idea, and get a better polarizer. Th *only* time I'd recommend use of a UV filter is in very inclement/corrosive/dirty environments, like sea spray. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 12:38:58 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Ditch the UV filter idea, and get a better polarizer. Th *only* time I'd recommend use of a UV filter is in very inclement/corrosive/dirty environments, like sea spray. |
its just a cheap wayto protect your lens |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 12:44:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by noisemaker:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Ditch the UV filter idea, and get a better polarizer. Th *only* time I'd recommend use of a UV filter is in very inclement/corrosive/dirty environments, like sea spray. |
its just a cheap wayto protect your lens |
Exactly and putting cheap glass in front of a good lens is no good thing....
|
|
|
|
12/10/2006 12:45:49 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by noisemaker:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Ditch the UV filter idea, and get a better polarizer. Th *only* time I'd recommend use of a UV filter is in very inclement/corrosive/dirty environments, like sea spray. |
its just a cheap wayto protect your lens |
and a good way to degrade the images your lens makes.
Message edited by author 2006-12-10 12:48:16. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 01:01:39 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Ditch the UV filter idea, and get a better polarizer. Th *only* time I'd recommend use of a UV filter is in very inclement/corrosive/dirty environments, like sea spray. |
And even with the polarizer....with the 12-24, you should go with an ultrathin one or suffer vignetting.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2006 01:04:58 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
and a good way to degrade the images your lens makes. |
Noticeable degradation in photo quality? It may be an interesting exercise to shoot under various conditions with and without a UV filter and post the results. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 01:13:13 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
and a good way to degrade the images your lens makes. |
Noticeable degradation in photo quality? It may be an interesting exercise to shoot under various conditions with and without a UV filter and post the results. |
Did you actually read the linked article or are you offering to do the exercise you propose?
Message edited by author 2006-12-10 13:13:37. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 01:15:30 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
and a good way to degrade the images your lens makes. |
Noticeable degradation in photo quality? It may be an interesting exercise to shoot under various conditions with and without a UV filter and post the results. |
Did you actually read the linked article or are you offering to do the exercise you propose? |
Yes, I read the article, thank you. Several months ago when this was previously discussed as well. Did you read my response? |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 01:24:53 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
and a good way to degrade the images your lens makes. |
Noticeable degradation in photo quality? It may be an interesting exercise to shoot under various conditions with and without a UV filter and post the results. |
Did you actually read the linked article or are you offering to do the exercise you propose? |
Yes, I read the article, thank you. Several months ago when this was previously discussed as well. Did you read my response? |
I look forward to you posting the results of your test. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 01:40:08 PM · #15 |
OK, I've stated this before, but will state it again. Every piece of glass you put in front of your lens should always have a purpose for being there, otherwise you are suffering degraded imagery for no reason.
That said: If you find you are clumsy with lenses, by all means, use the "UV" filter. That might be all the reason you need. Or learn to be careful with your lenses (and not just the front element).
I'd spend the extra money on a Circular Polarizer, because sometimes manual focus on a super-wide lens is hard for the human eye (especially mine). But, at distance the DoF os such a lens is very forgiving, sooo perhaps a Linear Polarizer isn't that bad.
The advice to use ultra-thin filters was good, because you're likely to get vignetting with focal lengths that wide otherwise. Another option is to buy larger filters and use step-up rings.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2006 01:59:28 PM · #16 |
I'm very surprised nobody mentioned this before in this thread.
There's no point in spending all that money for a 77mm circular polarizing filter when it'll only make your photos look like crap. When you shoot blue skies at 12-24mm, the sky will only have a small ugly dark stripe of polarized area due to the fact that the polarizer is most effective 90 degrees from the sun.
For smaller areas, like a few windows in the scene, it will work fine of course. Just don't expect to get those nice deep blue skies. |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 02:17:26 PM · #17 |
|
|
|
12/10/2006 02:45:55 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
I'm very surprised nobody mentioned this before in this thread.
There's no point in spending all that money for a 77mm circular polarizing filter when it'll only make your photos look like crap. When you shoot blue skies at 12-24mm, the sky will only have a small ugly dark stripe of polarized area due to the fact that the polarizer is most effective 90 degrees from the sun.
For smaller areas, like a few windows in the scene, it will work fine of course. Just don't expect to get those nice deep blue skies. |
I'm afraid you have been misinformed. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/06/2024 10:27:20 AM EDT.
