Polarizing Filter for Wide Angle Lens

[k_meade]

<p>I have a Canon EOS 6D and shall be taking pictures of landscapes/waterfalls, so I would like to get a polarizing filter for my Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L and EF24-105mm f4L lenses (luckily they both take 77mm filters). I read about possible vignetting on the wide angle lens and that I probably should get a slim-line polarizer, especially since I'll be using it on the 17-40mm lens a lot.<br>

<br /> I was looking at a few B+W filters but was confused by the title vs. description of the products:<br /> 1. "B+W 77mm Slim-Line Circular Polarizer" ($80) specifically says it's a slim-line, but it doesn't say it has a multi-resistant coating.<br /> 2. "B+W 77mm Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating" ($119) says that it has MRC, but the name "slim-line" is not in the product title and doesn't look as thin as the one described above. However, the product description on amazon.com states "New thinner Pro mount. No vignetting" which confused me.<br /> 3. "B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating" ($116) although is comparable in price to the $119 one and has the Käsemann foil, I'm assuming that this wouldn't work for my wide angle lens since it neither is described as slim-line nor has it in the description.<br /> <br />My question is does it specifically have to state slim-line in the title, or is the fact that it's described as "new thinner Pro mount. No vignetting" good enough? By the way, I don't need to buy B+W, I just read some good reviews about their filters. I can go with another less expensive brand, but I just don't want to put a really cheap filter on my good lenses. I have never used any filters before and any additional suggestions would be appreciated.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>While "slim-line" is not a very specific term (how thin is "thin"?) I'm sure those specific words don't have a technical meaning. Some filters are quite thick; the thinner the filter, the less likely it is to vignette. However, I can't vouch for their use on those lenses - hopefully someone else can. I'm sure they're much less likely to vignette at longer focal lengths.<br />

<br />

<i>However</i>... are you sure you care about polarizers on wide angle lenses? They'll make a sky look funny, because the polarizing effect of darkness varies by angle. I imagine they'll still work okay on water (at least horizontally), but it's something to consider.<br />

<br />

Hoya's HD filters are very good, if you'd like a recommended alternative. Especially if you're going to get stuff on them, or want transmission for dark waterfalls.</p>

[monika_epsefass]

<p>Get the B&W. Remarkably good quality. The term "multi-resistant coating" is a bit confusing - what are you intending to do with them? Cook on them? I've had salt spray on mine which I wiped off with an edge of my T-Shirt, I've toppled over and stuck a lens into a freshly plowed field with no harm.... don't worry too much! Rather go out and take pictures! ;)</p>

[ljwest]

<p>There is a <a href="http://www.adorama.com/BW77CPLKS.html">slim-line B+W Kaesemann in 77mm size</a> (Adorama link). I bought one a couple years ago for my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. Vignetting hasn't been a huge issue, and if I notice it at all, it's easy enough to zoom in a few mm...</p>

<p>Hold onto your wallet, though, it costs $180!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you are just using the polarizing filter to slow things down, you should consider ordinary neutral density (not graduated ones) filters as a less expensive alternative.<br>

On very wide angles, the polarizing effect, as suggested above, is uneven since the polarization depends on angle to the sun.<br>

B+W (plus, not ampersand) filters are very fine, when only the very best will do. On the other hand, Hoya and many alternatives exist that are very nearly as good, and cost much less.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>If you can afford it, I'd stick with the B+W. The multiresistant coating does make a big difference- much easier to get clean and seems to stay clean better. Hoya do make good filters, but whilst pretty much all B+W polarisers are top-drawer, Hoya cover the ground from medium to top end and the name itself is not terribly meaningful. Some of their better polarisers (Pro 1 for example) have in my experience been very hard to clean and the coating seems to wear off easily. Also the B+W have better mounts that are less likely to bind onto lenses. </p>

<p>I'd worry less than you do about vignetting- for the simple reason that I take a polariser off after each usage, and don't choose to polarise with zooms set to very wide because differential degrees of darkening across the frame tend to spoil the photographs IMO. If I want to darken skies across wide angles I use ND grads. I also wouldn't worry about the Kasemann filters unless you often work in humid conditions.</p>

<p>A polariser will these days slow your exposures of water by no more than 1.5 stops. The suggestion of a rather stronger ND filter (if longer exposures is your objective) is a good one. The polariser will reduce reflections and might also help a little with the glare from white water.</p>

<p> </p>

[2Oceans]

There is a 2009 review on lenstip. B&W had three of the top 6 circular polarisers.

The criteria looked objective IMHO. I use Nikon and Marumi and can see no difference between the two.

Good hunting. Andy

[k_meade]

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses so far. As far as using it at wide angle, I definitely will be using it on the wide angle because I'll be doing picture of waterfalls. In the Columbia River Gorge, many of the waterfalls are in places where you have to get right up to them to get a picture of the entire falls, so a ND filter would not work for this purpose since it's not just to increase exposure time but for glare as well (I'm less worried about skies, especially for wide angle). I think that $180 would be way too much for me to spend. Does either lightroom or Photoshop have the ability to reduce any vignetting that may occur?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The Hoya Pro1 filters are their mid-range. The HD ones have more transmission in a polarizer and have coating that are better at avoiding scratches, grease, dirt, etc. I've not compared them with the B+W, but don't think the Pro1 behaviour is the same as the HD. Of course, you pay for it, but possibly not as much as for B+W. I'd strongly suggest a decent cleanable filter (or one you're happy to discard) if you're doing waterfalls up close - I used my 14-24 (which doesn't take filters usefully) to try to shoot the Horseshoe Falls at Niagara from the Maid of the Mist, and I had to hand it over to Nikon for cleaning afterwards. Also, rain hood, obviously.<br />

<br />

Photoshop (I presume lightroom as well) has vignetting controls on the lens correction dialogue, assuming you're not completely blocking the corners of the image so there's nothing to recover. You can also apply a circular gradient and try to correct it manually.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you are really using the polarization as such, the answer is that it is one effect that cannot easily (or even with difficulty) be emulated in Photoshop at anything above pixel by pixel editing.<br>

How effective the polariser is in reducing reflections on the water depends on the angle to the sun, as said. This is known as a "<a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/polarizing-filters.htm">rule of thumb</a>" (heh, heh)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>What JDM says is right about the polarization - <i>that</i> can't be automated in Photoshop. Correcting the vignetting, assuming that you've got <i>some</i> information in the corners, <i>can</i> be automated.<br />

<br />

Or you could manual focus, buy a big sheet of linear polarizer, and just hold it in front of the lens...</p>