CPL filters

[phinix]

Hey gang!
I'm going on a trip to Italy in few weeks (Venice, Garda, Florence) and its going to be very hot and sunny
I was wondering, should I get a CPL filter for all those sunny days shooting?
I'm not a pro, just an enthusiast shooting my family environmental portraits on our trips.
I wasgoing to get a UV filter just to cover my Nikon 17-28mm lens front (it moves a bit inside a barrel when focusing), so it won't catch any dust, but maybe CPL would be more accurate to bring up some colors?
I dont care about reflections on water etc, so CPL would work as lens protection and color enhancement for me.
Also, not planning to buy very expensive one, but something in the middle, as long as it won't mess up image quality - K&F Concept Nano-D looks ok price wise.

 

[GreenNinja67]

Well worth it, will make water look better too (even if you're not fussed about it).

Be careful using it at wide angles, it will cause the blue skies to have darker parts and looks artificial.

My go to is Hoya Digital HD for filters if not buying expensive ones.

 

[phinix]

Well worth it, will make water look better too (even if you're not fussed about it).

Be careful using it at wide angles, it will cause the blue skies to have darker parts and looks artificial.

My go to is Hoya Digital HD for filters if not buying expensive ones.

Hoya looks expensive to me
£94 for example this one.

I was looking at this one, £30.

I would be using it on 17-28mm - you're saying it may make sky artificial?
Is it always the case with UWA lens? Should I maybe ditch the idea of cpl on this lens?

 

[Petrochemist]

CPLs are great but NEED to be adjusted to get any useful effect.
As has been said above polarisers don't work well with very wide angles, it shouldn't be an issue at 28mm but probably would at 17mm (on FF) this is down to he physics of the world about us where the polarisation of light scattered in the sky is dependant on the angle to the sun.

In landscapes I find them every bit as useful in boosting reflections from water/glass as in killing them, and of course can be adjusted to intermediate positions too.

I have to say most of my polarisers have been considerably less than £30 (generally brought used from charity shops)

 

[jimmyjamjojo]

Hoya looks expensive to me
£94 for example this one.

I was looking at this one, £30.

I would be using it on 17-28mm - you're saying it may make sky artificial?
Is it always the case with UWA lens? Should I maybe ditch the idea of cpl on this lens?

I have that exact filter and it's fine. Most of my filters are from K&F.

In terms of focal length - you'll see. The effect is dependant on your angle relative to the sun, and the angle of the filter affects the strength of the effect. At ultrawide focal lengths, at a 90 degree angle to the sun (the most effective angle), and with the filter turned to the most effect - You can get uneven polarisation in the sky. It just looks like a dark blob.

In fairness it's not a very common scenario, and you can usually fix it by just rotating the filter a little to lessen the effect and make it less prominent, you'll find a sweet spot where the landscape/water is still getting some benefit, while the sky looks almost normal.

Not my photo, but here's an example with the dark blob -

 

[phinix]

CPLs are great but NEED to be adjusted to get any useful effect.
As has been said above polarisers don't work well with very wide angles, it shouldn't be an issue at 28mm but probably would at 17mm (on FF) this is down to he physics of the world about us where the polarisation of light scattered in the sky is dependant on the angle to the sun.

In landscapes I find them every bit as useful in boosting reflections from water/glass as in killing them, and of course can be adjusted to intermediate positions too.

I have to say most of my polarisers have been considerably less than £30 (generally brought used from charity shops)

Thanks for confimring this. SOunds like I should not worry about paying for those little cheaper filters.

I have that exact filter and it's fine. Most of my filters are from K&F.

In terms of focal length - you'll see. The effect is dependant on your angle relative to the sun, and the angle of the filter affects the strength of the effect. At ultrawide focal lengths, at a 90 degree angle to the sun (the most effective angle), and with the filter turned to the most effect - You can get uneven polarisation in the sky. It just looks like a dark blob.

In fairness it's not a very common scenario, and you can usually fix it by just rotating the filter a little to lessen the effect and make it less prominent, you'll find a sweet spot where the landscape/water is still getting some benefit, while the sky looks almost normal.

Not my photo, but here's an example with the dark blob -

View attachment 489650

I see, so I udnerstand that I would see the effect straight in a viewfinder?
Even with 17mm I should be able to find best result without those darker blobs by turning the filter?

 

[jimmyjamjojo]

I see, so I udnerstand that I would see the effect straight in a viewfinder?
Even with 17mm I should be able to find best result without those darker blobs by turning the filter?

Yes, you'll see the effect in viewfinder.

You'll see that as you rotate the filter the "blob" will form on one side, then move across as you rotate more until it goes off the other side.
Ultimately, that blob is the polarising effect - the darkest part being maximum effect. Normally it covers the whole frame, but when you go ultrawide you see the whole area, similar to how an APSC lens on a full frame sensor will show vignetting.

At 17mm you'll still be able to use it by offsetting it one side or the other, you just won't be able to use it at 100% strength, which is often too much anyway.

 

[Bodian]

Yes - just get one, don't think too hard about it. It's the one thing that can't be replicated in later processing.

In fact, my first camera was my uncle's old 35mm camera that had a polariser. When I went travelling I bought an excellent Ricoh point and shoot - which I used all round Australia. Back in Sydney before leaving for New Zealand I bought a new SLR as it was tax-free if leaving in a month or so. And I basically bought it just for two reasons - firstly I wanted a zoom for taking some photos of cockatoos, and secondly, I really missed the polariser - as quite a few photos looked washed out and the waterfalls weren't great.

For £30, it's well worth it. And with K&F concept you also get a couple of nice microfibre cloths!

 

[LeeRatters]

Thanks for confimring this. SOunds like I should not worry about paying for those little cheaper filters.



I see, so I udnerstand that I would see the effect straight in a viewfinder?
Even with 17mm I should be able to find best result without those darker blobs by turning the filter?

Yes, you'll see the effect in viewfinder.

You'll see that as you rotate the filter the "blob" will form on one side, then move across as you rotate more until it goes off the other side.
Ultimately, that blob is the polarising effect - the darkest part being maximum effect. Normally it covers the whole frame, but when you go ultrawide you see the whole area, similar to how an APSC lens on a full frame sensor will show vignetting.

At 17mm you'll still be able to use it by offsetting it one side or the other, you just won't be able to use it at 100% strength, which is often too much anyway.

Or you quickly take two frames - One polarised how you want it for the foreground/water & then one without so you don't get the sky effects you don't want.

I sometimes do this with car photos.

 

[Petrochemist]

Or you quickly take two frames - One polarised how you want it for the foreground/water & then one without so you don't get the sky effects you don't want.

I sometimes do this with car photos.

I can definitely see the advantages for cars. Most cars have reflective surfaces at significantly different angles,,,