Circular Polarising and ND Filters

P

Pezza4u

Messages
333
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I've had my Nikon D5000 for a few years now but have never bought any kind of filter! I go away to the East coast a few times every year so would be taking beach and countryside shots and I enjoy photographing cars so I think a polarising filter would be good for my first one.

I don't want to spend much though so need some advise. I've seen the 52mm Hoya filter in Curry's for £20 or there is the Pro1 on Amazon for £24 - what is the difference? Or would a cheaper 7 Day Shop or Kood filter be ok to start with? Can you use these with panning cars as well?

With the ND filters if I was just going to get one to start with what grade should I go for, something like 8?
 
firstly CPL filters arent alot of good if the front element of your lenses rotates while focusing ( im not familar with the nikon lenses you have ) . they can be used but its fiddly as once focused you then have to adjust them accordingly.
Jacobs CPL filters are very good ( the black box ones not the blue box ) and can be found on ebay for around £10. Hoya filters can vary as there are several different versions ( the cheaper hoya ones are very average ).

for ND filters you can normally get sets of 3 that are 2x 4x and 8x but these tend to be cheap and rather poor quality.
you may want to consider Graduated NDS instead for the type of shots you are doing ( unless you are looking for that whole misty dream water and sky look in which case something like an ND6 would be better ) . If you just want to tone down a bright sky then soft grads would probably be the better option ( again if you have rotating front element when focusing fiddly to use )
 
CPLs are very useful for landscape work by enhancing blues and greens and reducing glare. They also significantly reduce the reflective quality of water. I've got the Hoya Pro 1; it's not too expensive and it does a good enough job for most situations. I would suggest that you go for the multi-coated version over the single-coated.

It would probably help in reducing the reflections on stationary vehicle paintwork but forget about using it for panning. It would offer you no advantage there and may even be detrimental to your shots.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies :)

I had a look at the Jacobs filter but I can't find much about them in the way of reviews. The price definitely suits me though, I can't see me using it that often.

After reading these reviews I think the Hoya Pro1 might also be worth considering. It's £24 on Amazon and I assume the Hoya would also hold it's value better than the Jacobs one?

I'm not sure if the front element rotates on my lenses or not, I've never looked but I'll check tonight.

With the ND filters I would like to have a go at getting the water to blue so I'll have a look around to see what might be suitable for me. Again I can't see me using it that much so don't want to spend much to start with. I think the CPL filter would get more use with landscapes and at car shows.

I know with ND filters you need to use a tripod but what about the CPL ones, can you use these handheld as well as on a tripod or would the shutter speeds drop to low?
 
you can lose around 1 stop of light with a cpl. so all depends on your aperture, shutter speed, iso, focal length etc. ignoring lenses with IS just remember the rule for handheld. shutter speed equal to or greater than focal length ( and on crop sensor you have to multiply by around 1.6x the focal length. so for instance on a 200mm lens on crop sensor thats 320mm so you need to shoot above 1/320th sec handheld.
so yes as long as you can remain above the handheld guide then your fine to shoot without tripod using filters
 
Thanks Dean.

I had decided to get the Hoya Pro1 filter but it's now gone up by over £10, typical!! :rolleyes:
 
CPLs pop up for sale in the classifieds here all the time. Unless your lens has an uncommon thread diameter, save yourself a few quid and buy second hand.
 
Also, what lens(es) are you using?

The 18-105 VR has a front element that doesn't rotate, but the 18-55 VR does (one of the many reasons why I think the 18-105 is a better kit lens).

A rotating front element will be a right pain with a CPL.
 
Ideally I wanted to take it with me when I go away on Friday so I've left it abit late to buy a used one. I think I will probably get the Jacobs one now, they said if I order before 2pm I should have it tomorrow.

I'll be using either the 18-55 or 35 that I have, do you know if that one rotates?

I was thinking about getting an 18-105 lens so maybe that's another reason but wouldn't it just be a pain if you have it on auto focus? If I focused myself and then turned the filter that shouldn't be so bad.
 
The front element of the 35mm/1.8 doesn't rotate. It's an awesome lens :)
Both your lenses have 52mm filter threads, which is handy. Although the 18-105 is 67mm, so if you're serious about getting one bear that in mind when buying filters.
If you rotate the filter after focussing, it doesn't a matter whether you're using AF or MF! Unless you're using tracking AF, of course.
 
I've not really used the 35mm for landscapes, I've read some opinions that it's not really suitable for this kind of photography but I'll see how it goes. It's only a hobby for me so I'm sure it'll suffice. All 3 of my lenses have a 52mm filter thread and I've ordered that Jacobs one now.

The 18-105 would be nice but I've just been reading up about the 16-85, which might be a better option as it's wider. Although new it's well out of my price range so I'll look for a good used one. If I do get some ND filters next then I really need to think about getting a better tripod first to replace the cheap Velbon one I have.
 
I got the filter before we went away and I'm impressed with the quality but I have one issue, although not a fault of the filter. The thread on the 18-55 kit lens starts too far down so the filter won't actually screw onto it! It's fine with my 35 and 55-200 lenses. I bought the camera 4 years ago so doubt Nikon would replace it, I can only assume it's a manufacturing issue.

I've been playing with the filter on my 35mm lens for now and I can definitely see a big difference in the reflections when viewing the image on the camera but the sky doesn't seem to change much. Would I notice this more on the computer rather than the camera?

I've been making sure the sun is to my left or right and that it's as near to 37 degrees as possible but could I be doing something wrong?
 
Here is an example of the results from cheap ND P size filters, in this case from XC Source on Amazon as reviewed in one of the Camera Mags, the first photo without and the second with 2 ND filters to blur the water, taken minutes apart. Can be cured in PP of course, given time and effort!
View attachment 20621 View attachment 20622
 
I have a 52mm Jacobs CPL that I've never used .... If you want I'll send it to you for nothing.
It'll just gather dust in my draw otherwise lol

PM me your address and I'll get it sorted.
 
Steve Smith said:
Where did 37 degrees come from?


Steve.
Click to expand...

It may be referring to Brewster's Angle, which is around 37 degrees, but that's the angle for killing reflections off shiny surfaces and nothing to do with blue skies. In the link, it's wrong and that instruction is also contradicted in the next sentence with the correct reference to 90 degrees to the sun for blue skies.
 
HarveyM said:
Here is an example of the results from cheap ND P size filters, in this case from XC Source on Amazon as reviewed in one of the Camera Mags, the first photo without and the second with 2 ND filters to blur the water, taken minutes apart. Can be cured in PP of course, given time and effort!
View attachment 20621 View attachment 20622
Click to expand...

Thanks, it gives me an idea of what to expect. I take it you would advise getting a decent filter over cheaper ones.

Jay said:
I have a 52mm Jacobs CPL that I've never used .... If you want I'll send it to you for nothing.
It'll just gather dust in my draw otherwise lol

PM me your address and I'll get it sorted.
Click to expand...

Thanks that's a nice offer but I bought the one on ebay now :)

HoppyUK said:
It may be referring to Brewster's Angle, which is around 37 degrees, but that's the angle for killing reflections off shiny surfaces and nothing to do with blue skies. In the link, it's wrong and that instruction is also contradicted in the next sentence with the correct reference to 90 degrees to the sun for blue skies.
Click to expand...

Thanks, so it doesn't matter what position the sun is as long as you are 90 degrees from it the sky will look more saturated? I'll look at my photos on the PC and see what they're like.
 
Pezza4u said:
<snip>

Thanks, so it doesn't matter what position the sun is as long as you are 90 degrees from it the sky will look more saturated? I'll look at my photos on the PC and see what they're like.
Click to expand...

Follow the guide in that link, with forefinger and thumb, pointing at the sun. That will indicate where the zone of max polarisation is, though it's quite broad. From that, you'll also discover that if you're facing the sun, a sunset say, you'll not see any polarised sky as the zone will be above and behind you; and if the sun is directly overhead, the polarised zone will run right around the horizon 360 degrees.
 
Re Cheap ND filters, yes I would recommend paying more to avoid or minimize colour casts, it might be worth checking out Kood filters or Cokin filters, although even the Cokin ND is said to cause a degree of tint, but I have no personal experience of these makes, I'm sure somebody on the Board will use these. Strangely, the Graduated NDs in the same XC Source set seem to be just fine.
 
I've been having a play with the filter abit more and I've definitely got the hang of removing reflections but I'm struggling abit with the skies. Is alot of the saturation still done in PP? I can see the difference it makes in the viewfinder but when I look on the camera display afterwards I barely notice any difference.

I have taken the sample shots below, one with the filter turned so there is no effect, I assume this is right cos I couldn't see a difference with and without it on. The other is at maximum polarisation but you can see I haven't got the sky even. I made sure the sun was 90 degrees to my right so I'm not sure if I've done something else wrong? How can I check if I'm struggling to see the difference on the camera?

No filter

15124488039_3412147709_o.jpg


With Filter

15288210356_8695c982d6_o.jpg
 
You're not 90 degrees to the sun, more like 45 degrees, so the sky is darker on the left, and would be darker still if the camera was pointed further to the left. The polariser is clearly working well on the reflections on the cladding, and the foliage is richer.
 
HoppyUK said:
You're not 90 degrees to the sun, more like 45 degrees, so the sky is darker on the left, and would be darker still if the camera was pointed further to the left. The polariser is clearly working well on the reflections on the cladding, and the foliage is richer.
Click to expand...

I like to think I know my angles and if I had turned any more to the left I would've gone past 90 degrees :confused: I'll have to practise some more with it, I guess I won't master it on the first go. It's just a shame the rest of last week was foggy/cloudy where I was staying as I wanted to try it on the beach. I think my main problem is going to be checking on the camera, even when I zoomed in I couldn't tell if the sky was even or not.

Would these filters be able to remove all of the reflections in a photo, for instance could I have improved the green sign on the left?
 
Pezza4u said:
I like to think I know my angles and if I had turned any more to the left I would've gone past 90 degrees :confused: I'll have to practise some more with it, I guess I won't master it on the first go. It's just a shame the rest of last week was foggy/cloudy where I was staying as I wanted to try it on the beach. I think my main problem is going to be checking on the camera, even when I zoomed in I couldn't tell if the sky was even or not.

Would these filters be able to remove all of the reflections in a photo, for instance could I have improved the green sign on the left?
Click to expand...

You can see from the shadow where the sun is, and the camera is not at 90 degrees to it. Do the finger and thumb thing as described in your link post #16 and you'll see that the zone of max polarisation is to the far left, it then continues out of view, above and behind the camera position to the right.

On the green sign, most of the light/dark there is simply sun and shadow though the polariser has darkened it a bit. The filter has had a dramatic effect on the reflections on the big glass doors where the surfaces are around the optimum 30-40ish degrees to the camera. When you get the angles right, even very bright reflections will disappear almost completely, but only at the optimum angle and at the correct degree of rotation. For example, if you stand at a front three-quarters position to a dark shiny car (at a roughly 30-40 degrees position) and rotate the filter, reflections will come and go on the bonnet/windscreen/roof when the angle is right, and ditto along the side and doors. But you can't kill both at the same time. As you rotate the filter, as one set of reflections is reduced, the other set will return.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top