Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 31, 2004, 8:20 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default Polarizing Filter(s)

I am planning a trip to the Beaches of Northern Florida around the middle to the end of April - for some Scenic pix & wondered if I really need to buy a Polarizer Filter for my 28-135 as that will be the lens I will keep on my 300D about 75 to 85% of the time. Not worried about one for my 20-35 as it will be on my EOS 3. I haven't shot any pix at a Beach in a LOOONG time - in fact it has Always been slide film.
One reason I ask is that is was in a small town in Alabama last week & took 3 pix of a Large White Mansion - in between some Big trees at about 11:35 am - the first 2 washed out (could have saved them if need be in the computer) & the 3rd one was "on the money". I also have a UV/Warming filter for my 28-135 that I have yet to try. I am also considering a Neutral Density .06 filter as well for other applications .
Remember - ALL of my outdoor photos are shot in TV Mode & that has worked great for me in all 3 of my EOS bodies - both Film & Digital.
Your comments would be welcome.
Thanks
David
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 31, 2004, 8:35 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

The purpose of a polarizer lens is to reduce reflections. It doesn't care whether you're shooting digital, slide, or film, nor does it matter which mode you shoot.

The ND filters will come in handy on very bright days.

Having grown up in NW Florida, I can assure you that the reflections off the white sands are VERY bright and you will need to watch your exposures closely to prevent blowing the highlights.

Personally, I would have a polarizer available. Any shots into the water will certainly benefit as will many scenic shots that include the skies. Not sure what added value the UV filter will provide as most modern lenses are UV coated already.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 9:59 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14
Default

Maybe I'm showing my age here but I'm of the persuasion that a UV filter is handy even if you don't think the UV blocking is worthwhile: it keeps gunk off the front element of that (expensive) lens. I've always kept one on my SLR lenses since I started serious photography in 1975.

Now, it's arguable whether this costs you any quality due to that extra layer of glass -- but the number of times I've had something (someone?) smack into the UV filter or caught liquid spray on the front of the camera have convinced me. A $20 filter vs. a $400 lens? I'll deal with the potential loss of image quality.
GregDunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 10:06 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

I don't think the purpose of this thread was to argue the merits or pitfalls of placing a UV filter on a lens for protective features. This has been beat too death on this and other forums ad nauseum. There are two camps and neither will budge.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 10:36 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

Railfire,
You said that UV was a warming model, it could add some spice to sunsets. I can't concieve of standing on a beach and not getting a couple sunsets, a graduated ND could be helpful also. Have a great time, post pics when you get back.
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 1:03 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 209
Default

A warming filter shouldn't be necessary - all it does is change the white balance in the picture - something that can be done in-camera (or in-computer if you shoot raw) My experience says that a polarizing filter is worth getting. The sky will be bluer, there will be less reflection off the water making it sharper, and it might even allow you to see details under the water that otherwise might be lost. Make sure you get a circular polarizer, not a linear one which will screw up your autofocus. Also keep in mind that polarizing filters sometimes make you lose a bit of light, but not more than a stop. Check out the examples on Hoya's website. By the way, they also make a filter that is a polarizing and UV filter in one piece of glass.
LTBerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2004, 12:48 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

Hey everyone! Many thanks for the info. I had just read about the Circular Polarizing filters to be used for Auto focus & guess what? I had called Tiffen for some advice & the Lady I spoke with didn't know Jack! She didn't know that about the difference in the regular Polarizing Filter & the Circular. This has made me take a longer look at the Hoyas. I like the sound of the UV/Polarizer - known as a Moose Warm Polarizer, but I am NOT really excited about paying $98.95 for the 72mm size! I have checked on/ read the specs on the folllowing filters for other things.
A Tiffen Ultra Contrast 3 - Grade 4 or 5; a Tiffen Color Grad Sunrise . . . . or a B+W Tobacco; & a ND .6 for later on. Anyone had any experience with the first 2 mentioned?? I am also looking at possibly buying a LowePro Orion Beltpack, & that will make 4 LowePro bags! Hmmm. Almost too many. Maybe I better take the old Haliburton out of retirement!
My next venture after the Destin, FL area will be to the Mississippi Delta! Flatland for as far as the eye can see! Great food to be had there (water sucks).
Thanks again.
David
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2004, 10:11 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohenry
The purpose of a polarizer lens is to reduce reflections. It doesn't care whether you're shooting digital, slide, or film, nor does it matter which mode you shoot.
Not just for that (very effective to reduce the reflection, glass, water, shiny subjects, etc..), it also helps to darken the blue sky and improve color and contrast if you in the right position when taking photograph (90 degree angle with the sun). The polarizer filter is great to have, but it doesn't work well in low light since it will reduce at least 2 F-stops. In addition, if you have one of the zoom lens with the maximun aperture of F/5.6 at the longer focal length, with this filter attach to the lens, you would have an effective zoom lens with F/11, at that F stop, it's impossible for any AF camera to handle, manual focus is difficult too since it will darken the view finder.

AF camera does not work well with linear polarizer filter, circular does and it does cost more, if you're going to use with AF cameras, buy the later one since pattern of the light when it hits the filter, does not intefere with AF.

If you don't want to add on the UV fiter, you still can buy a clear filter for the purpose of protection, with the combination of filter and lens hood, they will provide better protection also, never leave home without both skylight filter also block out the UV but add the warmer tone to subject in the shade or shadow...

When buying filter, buy the reliable brand such as Hoya or B+W, a multi-coated filter (at least 4 layers on each side) is better than a mono- coated filter.

Cheers
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2004, 12:31 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239
Default

Not to sound rude, but I have only been taking pix now for 26 years & I KNOW to Use skylight filters. They are ON every lens I own.
Has anyone out there had any experience using Tobacco filters?
Thanks.
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:38 AM.