What should I pay for a polarizing filter?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Robert Coe, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. Bragging rights?
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Sep 1, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest


    Interesting.

    I have never had any problem of that sort with a filter of any brand
    since 1972, when I bought my first. But that's a mere forty years,
    and I must have only bought a couple of hundred in that time. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Sep 1, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Robert Coe

    Alan Browne Guest

    That's almost as specious a claim as your 50 rolls per week shooting rate.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 1, 2012
    #23
  4. Robert Coe

    Frank S Guest

    Some things are really difficult to accept. I saw on the Canon site
    their-brand 77mm circular polarizer, and the out-of-stock item is listed at
    $460. Adorama says the item cost $199.95 but is no longer available. B&H,
    same price but "Temporarily out of stock".

    I better start looking for the one I bought six or seven years ago for a
    little over a hundred dollars: there is one listed on Amazon, used, for
    $286.92. What in the world could have such an effect in such a short time?
     
    Frank S, Sep 1, 2012
    #24
  5. Maybe it's the same as commodity pricing and speculation?

    Barclays made a £500 million killing off starving people...
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Sep 1, 2012
    #25
  6. Robert Coe

    Alan Browne Guest

    Was the one you bought multicoated?
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 1, 2012
    #26
  7. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    : : >
    : > Some things are really difficult to accept. I saw on the Canon site
    : > their-brand 77mm circular polarizer, and the out-of-stock item is listed
    : > at $460. Adorama says the item cost $199.95 but is no longer available.
    : > B&H, same price but "Temporarily out of stock".
    : >
    : > I better start looking for the one I bought six or seven years ago for
    : > a little over a hundred dollars: there is one listed on Amazon, used,
    : > for $286.92. What in the world could have such an effect in such a short
    : > time?
    :
    : Maybe it's the same as commodity pricing and speculation?
    :
    : Barclays made a £500 million killing off starving people...

    How did they do that? Selling them short?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 1, 2012
    #27
  8. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...akes-500m-betting-on-food-crisis-8100011.html

    <<Barclays has made as much as half a billion pounds in two years from
    speculating on food staples such as wheat and soya, prompting allegations
    that banks are profiting handsomely from the global food crisis.>>

    This on top of trying to dodge paying £500 million in tax.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-using-loopholes-dodge-paying-500m-tax.html

    <<Barclays was yesterday prevented from using two 'highly abusive'
    loopholes to dodge paying £500 million of tax.>>
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Sep 1, 2012
    #28
  9. Robert Coe

    Me Guest

    A lot of comments about flare in this thread.
    If you're using a polariser as intended -daylight, outside, and at an
    angle to the sun where the sky light is polarised, and with a lens of
    normal or telephoto focal length, you don't get flare. With wide or
    ultra-wide or ultra-wide I suppose it's possible that you could get
    flare, but if you're framimg the shot with the sun close to being in the
    frame then the polarising effect/intensity is going to be very uneven
    across the frame - not something I like to see, and I'd probably want to
    try to keep the scene framed at 90 deg to the sun so at least the sides
    were even (IMO it's better to avoid polarisers with w/a, but YMMV)
    So generally in situations where flare might be a problem in a shot, you
    don't want any filter at all, but perhaps need a protective filter in
    which case a multicoated filter makes sense, but for polarisers, save
    your money unless you want to leave the filter on the lens all the time
    by default, rather than fit it when needed.
     
    Me, Sep 1, 2012
    #29
  10. Its not marketing hype. If any of your 77 mm lenses are telephoto,
    you need to spend big bucks. Say $25 as a minimum. Cheap filters
    will result in fuxxy pictures at tele focal lengths. The difference
    between $45 and $150 was dramatic at 300 mm. My B+W one at $150
    was as sharp as no filter. Blur and flare come from different causes.

    Also note that I bought only one polarizer! I bought reducers
    to fit all my other lenses except the 10-22 mm one. On a crop frame
    camera this always works .

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Sep 2, 2012
    #30
  11. O my. I meant $125.
     
    Doug McDonald, Sep 2, 2012
    #31
  12. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    Did some shots this morning and a farmer's market in Kenebunk, in
    addition to the obligatory harbor shots. There was a slight haze, but
    did not see the need for a polarize.
    A few nights ago I got some horrific glare when shooting into the sun.
    Cured by application of some lens cleaner..
     
    PeterN, Sep 2, 2012
    #32
  13. Robert Coe

    PeterN Guest

    You and I are able to engage in the same sort of speculation. You may
    make a profit if you know what you are doing.
     
    PeterN, Sep 2, 2012
    #33
  14. Robert Coe

    Peabody Guest

    Robert Coe says...
    I bought one of the ultra-cheap Zeikos CPLs at Amazon for my
    18-55 kit lens. It works fine. The reviews indicate it's a
    coin flip as to whether you get a usable filter or not.
    But, your 77mm CPL would be $8.40.
     
    Peabody, Sep 2, 2012
    #34
  15. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 9/1/2012 6:12 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
    :
    : >>
    : >
    : > Its not marketing hype. If any of your 77 mm lenses are telephoto,
    : > you need to spend big bucks. Say $25 as a minimum.
    :
    : O my. I meant $125.

    Yeah, jeez. I was starting to think you were making fun of me. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 2, 2012
    #35
  16. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 8/31/2012 4:54 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > Because of aquisitions over the past couple of years, three of my most-used
    : > lenses are now 77mm diameter. So imagine my irritation last weekend when I
    : > reached for a 77mm circular polarizer and realized that I don't have one! My
    : > largest polarizer is 67mm. :^|
    : >
    : > So, off to the B&H Web site to find what I need. But it seems that the prices
    : > of polarizers can now vary by a factor of five or six ($45 to $275, more
    : > or less). So can you guys help me sort this out? How much does a serious
    : > photographer have to spend? In the "old days" I'd have bought the $45
    : > polarizer without a second thought. Should I reconsider that attitude now?
    : > Are there actually important differences, or is it all marketing hype?
    : >
    : > Bob
    : >
    :
    : Its not marketing hype. If any of your 77 mm lenses are telephoto,
    : you need to spend big bucks. Say $25 as a minimum. Cheap filters
    : will result in fuxxy pictures at tele focal lengths. The difference
    : between $45 and $150 was dramatic at 300 mm. My B+W one at $150
    : was as sharp as no filter. Blur and flare come from different causes.
    :
    : Also note that I bought only one polarizer! I bought reducers
    : to fit all my other lenses except the 10-22 mm one. On a crop frame
    : camera this always works .

    Well, I'm resigned to buying two. Lately I find that I almost always use two
    cameras, even for landscape work. Until I get too old and feeble to carry two,
    I'll probably keep on doing it.

    Bob


    :
    : Doug McDonald
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 2, 2012
    #36
  17. Robert Coe

    dadiOH Guest

    I generally agree but polarizers are also useful for removing reflections
    from objects. IIRC, the sweet angle is 35 degrees and for that the sun is
    going to be somewhat in your face.

    --

    dadiOH
    ____________________________

    Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
    Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
    http://www.floridaloghouse.net
     
    dadiOH, Sep 2, 2012
    #37
  18. Robert Coe

    Me Guest

    I think it's 90 degrees, with optimal effect 15-30 degrees from this.
    That would seem about right - certainly by the time you're using a lens
    wider than about 28mm (35mm format), uneven skies can become a problem.
    Yes, removing/reducing reflections from objects may be a situation where
    flare could be worse with an uncoated filter. But I can't recall ever
    taking a photo with an uncoated polariser where flare was a problem.
    Paying a high price to solve a problem which doesn't exist may be false
    economy.
     
    Me, Sep 2, 2012
    #38
  19. You should pay as much as Apple ask you to because
    a circular piece of glass is just a rectangle with rounded corners!

    Polarised or not, Apple have it covered. ;-)
     
    R. Kennedy McEwen, Sep 3, 2012
    #39
  20. That is what investors do. Barclays didn't even do it particularly
    well!

    Next you'll be telling us the Pope is Catholic - even if the late
    Cardinal of Milan thought that faith was an out-dated concept. ;-)
     
    R. Kennedy McEwen, Sep 3, 2012
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.