Polarising filter - worth it?

[spylaw4]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wondering if a polarising filter is useful, and if so worth the cost? One part of my upcoming holiday will be at high-ish altitude in the Andes, and I already have a UV filter, so I'm seeking some advice, for which I thank in advance those who reply!

[marknorton]

One of my employees went to Machu Pichu (spelling?) and swore by her polarising filter. That said, her pictures (from a Nikon D100) had a peculiar green cast to them so it's not clear to me whether they help or hinder...

[spylaw4]

Interesting Mark, and noted. One other question arises, and that is what size of filter to get. D2 filters are 69mm, which is a bit of an odd size to say the least. Should I go up in diam to the next most available size or down to 67mm? Adapters are easy to come by on eBay.

[Guest stnami]

Go bareback, why spoil a good lens...

[Riley]

penetrating shaddows in very bright sunlight is helped with a polariser

circumstances that would leave black instead of detail

and colors are more saturated

 

and they also enrich the blue sky, but be careful with very wide lenses in that application

 

i only use quality optical glass linear polarisers by Hoya

 

Riley

[Guest rubidium]

I second the Riley post. In many situations, a pol can bring out vivid surface detail of objects which would otherwise be "washed out" by glare. During 25 years of Leica-R ownership I've come to rely on them in many outdoors situations.

 

However, in most practical situations where a given filter orientation (rotation) successfully achieves this improvement, it does so over a limited solid angle. Thus, as you get into the wide angle lenses, you can easily find yourself trying to compromise which portion of the field of view to improve upon. Given my experiences, I would argue that a pol filter with lenses of about 24mm and shorter focal length has marginal utility.

 

Also, if you're going to go with a pol, don't scrimp on the quality. A good one will be of glass having planar parallel surfaces, and will impart attenuation to unwanted scattered light components with neutral density. The cheap filters can introduce optical distortions and/or add a color tinge (usually dark green) to your image. My experience thus far has been with Leitz/Leica, B&W (Schneider), and Heliopan filters, and I've had no regrets with any of these (except perhaps lamenting over the cost!)

Jim

[robsteve]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wondering if a polarising filter is useful, and if so worth the cost? One part of my upcoming holiday will be at high-ish altitude in the Andes, and I already have a UV filter, so I'm seeking some advice, for which I thank in advance those who reply!

 

Brian:

 

The polarizer will also cut through a lot of the haze in the higher altitudes.

[graham_mitchell]

In the right circumstances the PF can make a shot which would otherwise be ruined. Only you can say how often you might need it.

[ho_co]

Brian--

I also have a D2 and have toyed with the same question. I know some excellent photographers who wouldn't be caught dead without a polarizer, including on the Digilux 2.

 

But my guess for both of us is that since we've had the camera this long without a polarizer, we probably don't need one.

 

The use of a polarizer on the D2 precludes use of the very effective lens hood.

 

It's your choice on the question what size to buy if you decide to get one. Since I have a 77 mm CPol for my dSLR (though I haven't used it), I'm purchasing a stepup ring to 77 mm for each lens on that camera, and would get a 69 to 77 mm step ring for the D2 if I decided to go that route. I wouldn't want to go down to 67 mm, but would get a larger size instead. The polarizer is a thick filter and the adapter ring pushes it out further, so a smaller diameter would likely vignette at greater apertures.

 

Every post here makes a valid point--whether you need one depends on your style. They're fiddly, and I'd probably say 'go without.'

 

--HC

[LADP]

A good polarizer is great tool. I don't know why a polarizer would effect a green cast to photographs (as mentioned in the Machu Pichu story above) unless it was a cheap polarizer. In the motion picture world, we tend to like B+W brand and Schneider Tru-Pola type polarizers. They are optically excellent, and neutral (virtually ND) from a color standpoint.

 

I have a B+W polarizer in 39mm, but need to get a larger one for my 50/1.4 Asph. Lux.

 

Just a quick tip I might pass on. As we all know, unscrewing a polarizer to orient the filter to your desired degree of polarization and then screwing it back on is a PIA. The swing away types that allow you to set it and swing it back in front of the lens is relatively bulky and inelegant solution IMO.

 

I wear polarized sunglasses whenever I'm outside. I have oriented my polarizers to my sunglasses: hold the polarizer up next to your glasses, and find the appropriate orientation that matches your glasses. You can do this by viewing a reflection off a glass surface for example, or simply with the sky. If viewing the sky, looking at a patch of the sky 90 degrees off from the sun will maximize the effect of the polarizer. Once you've found the proper match to your polarized sunglasses, make a mark on the top of the rotating ring with nail polish or something semi permanent. Now whenever you are about to take a photograph, just tilt your head from side to side to find the orientation of the polartizer that gives you the desired effect, and simply rotate your polarizer on your lens to match. I find this method quick, easy, and pretty accurate.

[albertknappmd]

polar is the key filter to take with you!

[spylaw4]

Thank you all for some really useful information and thoughts, especially LADP and HC. Now I must do some thinking!

 

I did guesss that going larger would be the better route and that it would preclude use of the lens hood.

[ho_co]

Anthony--what a great post! I always avoided polarized glasses because I was afraid they would make it hard to work with a polarizer if I decided to use one.

 

All--Not to throw a monkey-wrench into the soup, but there is a wonderful article on teaching yourself to see polarization without a filter--yes, see polarization with the naked eye!--at Haidinger's brush: the unknown sense.

 

And no, I haven't taught myself to do it, but it's an interesting idea for the future!

 

Who knows? Natural selection may be striving to remove that ability, so maybe we need to fight back!

 

--HC

[wparsonsgisnet]

Anthony,

 

My kudo's for the post about the polarizer glasses, as well.

I don't like them and therefore am thinking about a small polarizing filter that I might wear around the neck -- and play the same marking game you describe.

 

What a terrrific idea!

[johnll]

Kenko has a polarising filter on a sort of stem like a lollipop or magnifying glass that you can keep in your bag and use for this. I think Robert White has them.

[andybarton]

Interesting about the sunglasses, Anthony. William Lamb has some sunglasses that allow him to see in black and white (or something).

 

I will see if I can find his post.

[zymonk]

I've had two swing away Leica's for my M4-2 & 35mm lens. Both developed strange abrasion like rings in the glass. It didn't help with the resale. They also viengetted somewhat and were a contributing factor in my lens loosining up. I don't use one anymore.

[gdewitt]

Much of my photography for much of my life was done while climbing in high mountains. So my comments are specific to high mountain environments.

 

I love polarizers BUT my own experience is that the higher the altitude the less useful they are. You say high altitude, but you don't specify what that means. 12,000 ft. in the Andes may seem high altitude to most people, but as the Andes go it isn't high altitude. In the high mountains you will find little haze and deep blue skies with no need to polarize. But in high-altitude valleys you will find that conditions are similar to valleys near other mountains such as the Alps or Cascades, lots of haze and ordinary-blue skies.

 

So, though I take a polarizer everywhere, the higher I am the less I use it in order to avoid the over-polarized look.