Polarizer for bird/wildlife photography?

I plan to spend the weekend on a white-sand beach with clear skies in the forecast. I expect the sun to be brutally

bright. I will concentrate on wildlife/bird shots, and I'm wondering on the benefits of a polarizer vs losing 2 f-stops

when taking long telephoto shots of birds in flight. I will be using a 40D and a 100-400mm L. I shoot RAW and

process in DPP and Lightroom. I haven't used a polarizer yet with that lens because I didn't want to compromize on

speed. But for this trip, I'm worried about all that glare. Actually, I don't even know if bird photographers even use

polarizers at all. Any suggestions?

<p>Fine if you can pull it off. Hwvr, one of the most important technical concerns is to have a fast enough speed to stop the motion. Losing two stops of light can be a major impediment, especially when the light is good but weak, such as early morning and close to sunset. My personal experience is that it is hard enough to pull it off sometimes even without a polarizer. :)</p>

<p>What Mary said! For BIF that 1-1/2-2 stops lost by using a polarizer is probably more important than any gain you might get due to the polarizer effect. Also you'll only get the glare reduction when pointing the camera in a certain direction, possible but difficult to predict with birds coming/going in different directions.</p>

<p>When you use long teles, we fight for every stop of light. There are reasons that a 300mm/f2.8 costs some 4 times as much as a 300mm/f4 from the same brand. There is no point to lose 2 stops through a polarizer.</p>

<p>Moreover, when the sun is "brutally bright," it is typically not a good time to photograph. Try more early morning and late afternoon when the sun is lower.</p>

<p>Marc, I never use a polarizer for the very reason you mentioned. As for dealing with glare, keep the sun behind you and if possible, catch the birds flying into the wind. You will appreciate the extra couple stops you get this way.</p>

 

<p>Go ahead and try it and post back with your experience. I suspect that you'll quickly remove the polarizer but you may prove us all wrong.</p>

<p>A polarizer might work if you position yourself properly and the sun is blazing and the birds don't move out of the area of polarization....lots of ifs. Like most said above, it is not usually an ideal choice, although occasionally I've used it for slow moving ducks on small ponds.</p>

<p>You might be better served by a hood.</p>

<p>Wow. You are a veritable gold mine of experience. Many many thanks for taking the time to help me "hit the ground running" (or the beach, or the trail...).</p>

<p>The polarizer gives you maximum effect at 90 degrees to the sun's axis and with the index mark properly aligned. For a sitting shot where you can take your time, it's no problem. As others have already said, for what you want, lose the filter.</p>

<p>If the bird has a lot of color in its feathers, judicious use of a polarizer might reduce the glare from the sun on them and increase the saturation of the colors. </p>

<p>Thanks, Alex. You took the words out of my... keyboard. These are the benefits I was thinking about when I asked the question. I see that this is no different than everything else in photography: a trade-off between many factors and conditions. I'll be mindfull of time of day, sun orientation, Stephen's "ifs", etc etc. Won't it be nice (for people like me) when a camera can run this decision algorythm, and flash a message in the viewfinder like “Put on your polarizer”? Thank you all for you advice.</p>

<p>You are right you lose 2 stops when using a polarizer, plus you have to position yourself so that the rays of the sun are at an angle. However if you are shooting at mid-day those 2 stops might not mean allot. I once used an el-cheapo Canon 3.5-4.5 80-200 mm lens that had a polarizer filer stuck on it so I had no choice. That lens took some amazing pictures of birds in flight against a deep blue sky. When it comes to birds, you really don't have time to think, should I use a polarizer, should I change my ISO, should I position myself at this or that angle, you just hold up the camera, fire away and hope for the best. </p>

<p>Well, I just came back from that 3-day trip. I tried the polarizer, and stopped wasting shots after about 10 minutes. At 400mm with a f5.6 maximum, the ISO/shutter speed/IQ margins were simply too slim, let alone the need to fiddle with the polarizer orientation. Big birds (like gulls) are tricky enough, but even without the polarizer, I struggled like a maniac trying to capture sparrows entering and leaving their nests in the dunes. Many thanks to all of you for your valuable advice.</p>

<p>it is also tedious to adjust the polarizer while you have the lenshood on (you need to adjust it every time you change the camera orientation).</p>

<p>You're so right, Sitthivet. I find it awkward to stick my hand down the deep lenshood of my 100-400mm without touching the filter. By the way, have any of you tried to drill a finger hole into a deep lenshood? I seem to remember that some hoods from another company (Nikon?) have a small opening with a sliding cover. I'm thinking of simply drilling a hole at the 7 o'clock position. What do you think?</p>