Need New Polarizer filter - Choices are Mind Boggling

[Film-Niko]

From a quality point of view the best you can get are the B+W circular polarizer filters type "Käsemann" (KSM), with the MRC nano coating. By far best, most neutral color rendition. And no visible sharpness loss.

Polarisationsfilter

Zirkularpolfilter Das Standard-Zirkularpolfilter eignet sich gleichermaßen für Analog- und Digitalkameras. Lineare Polarisierung kann bei Strahlenteilung im Kamerainneren (durch Spiegel oder Prismen) die Belichtungs- oder AF-Messung verfälschen. Zirkulare Polarisierung verhindert das, bei sonst...

bw-filtershop.de

I can confirm that from my own experience. I can highly recommend them.

There have been several tests in photo magazines in the past confirming that.

I remember such tests in several German print photo magazines (in Germany there are still about 20(!!) printed photo magazines available; that is on a global scale unique to my knowledge).
I think somewhere I even have the tests still in my archive.......
Anyway:
In these tests also sharpness and contrast has been tested. And that is the first you demand from your filter: No visible loss in sharpness and contrast caused by the added filter!!
And that is an area in which the tested B+W and Heliopan filters were top.
Unfortunately that important factor for example was not tested in the test from the lenstip team.

 

[DREW WILEY]

DF - If you go to a company providing a very large selection of these filters, like B&H, link to the size (diameter) you want, and then for any given one, the Specifications. There the nature of the coatings, if any, will be noted. Some manufacturers offer more than one coating option. You pretty much get what you pay for. There are certain coating repercussions in relation to digital sensors which don't necessarily apply to film usage. And in relation to color films, you ideally want a filter which is itself color neutral; you typically pay extra for that.

I'm personally a bit baffled with all the amateur obsession over polarizing filters in the first place, but I guess people have to try them for themselves to find out if they really benefit their own photography or not.

For used items, I too would recommend Tim at Filterfind.net. I've visited his little warehouse; he's got a lot of things in there, and accurately lists the condition of these. Much of his inventory was actually liquidated from former camera store stock, so never has been used.

 

[benveniste]

Many of the recommendations, the various brands that is, don't indicate whether or not their filters are coated - "multi-coated" - "single-coated' - etc.
Hoya - Kenko - Tiffen - ???

Hoya camera filters are actually manufactured by Kenko. Hoya sold the rights to distribute under their name quite a number of years ago.

Hoya sells both single-coated and multicoated filters of varying quality. Tiffen sells both uncoated and multicoated filters. The latter are sold under their "Digital HT" mark.

Compare Filters

UV Filters HD3 UV From $68.90 BUY NOW EVO Antistatic UV From $47.90 BUY NOW NXT Plus UV From $24.90 BUY NOW Alpha II Protector From $17.90 BUY NOW Light Transmission 99.7% 99.8% 98.0% 95.0% Glass Type Hoya 4X Chemically Hardend UV Optical Hoya L39 UV Sharp Cut Optical Schott B270 Ultra White...

hoyafilterusa.com

Linear polarizers work fine on all of Minolta's manual-focusing SLR cameras. All you need is a $2 step-up ring.

While I'll use step-up rings for special effects filters, I'm not a fan of them for polarizers ever since I destroyed a 77mm filter on a 72mm step-up ring while photographing Mount Rainier. As a result, I own polarizers in the following sizes:
37mm, 39mm (drop-in), 40.5mm, 46mm, 52mm, 58mm, 62mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, 82mm, and 86mm.

 

[xkaes]

I own polarizers in the following sizes:
37mm, 39mm (drop-in), 40.5mm, 46mm, 52mm, 58mm, 62mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, 82mm, and 86mm.

Different strokes for different folks!!!

 

[_T_]

You could spend $100 on a cpl and get marginally better performance or you could spend $20 on a good enough filter and get $80 worth of film

 

[DREW WILEY]

One man's "good enough" might be another man's disappointment, especially if that $80 worth of film didn't come out quite right due to something in front of the lens compromising the whole nine yards.

 

[DF]

Delamination is a common failure mode. Fortunately, that is easy to see.

You mean years of fingerprints, because of their acidity, eat away at the coating(s)??

 

[BrianShaw]

You mean years of fingerprints, because of their acidity, eat away at the coating(s)??

Probably not fingerprints but humidity or temperature causing delaminating.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Delamination of polarizers is more of an internal thing involving the polarizing layers, not of the dichroic glass coatings themselves (that can occur due to improper cleaning with something abrasive, just like with a lens).

 

[DF]

'Just found out from their website that Tiffen circular polarizers are not coated at all.
All these years with that Tiffen I wonder how much better my 'chromes might've looked had it been coated (multi?)

 

[Kodachromeguy]

'Just found out from their website that Tiffen circular polarizers are not coated at all.
All these years with that Tiffen I wonder how much better my 'chromes might've looked had it been coated (multi?)

If you used a hood, I expect that you would have not seen any difference. Shading the front of you lens is always the best flare reduction technique.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tiffen offers just a few coated filters, and only began that recently. Their strong point is their huge selection of sandwich style tinted filters (two pieces of glass with a colored thermo sheet in between). But one has to use more care keeping uncoated filters clean and well shaded.

 

[benveniste]

'Just found out from their website that Tiffen circular polarizers are not coated at all.
All these years with that Tiffen I wonder how much better my 'chromes might've looked had it been coated (multi?)

Uncoated filters have two disadvantages. The first is that they further increase the likelihood of flare. The second is that they reflect away about 7-8% more light than a multicoated filter. The former is likely to have cost you more shots than the latter.

 

[eli griggs]

About brass step-ups rings, Ludiz makes and sells them on Amazon.com; at affordable prices.

While I personally wish they had one-two more thread rotations, I still like them better than aluminum or steel, etc.

 

[xkaes]

We need to differentiate between un-coated, single-coated, and multi-coated. Filters come in all three styles. Just because a filter does not state that it in "MULTI-COATED", does not mean that it is UN-coated. Flat glass does not need multi-coating in most situations. As mentioned, a lens shade would be a bigger help.

On related note, why most polarizers are not multi-coated is a puzzle to me.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you used a hood, I expect that you would have not seen any difference. Shading the front of you lens is always the best flare reduction technique.

Amen

 

[DREW WILEY]

Since a polarizing filter involves two pieces of glass, along with intermediate polarizing foil, the lack of coating is going to have a more significant effect than with an ordinary filter.

An exception might be the very expensive Singh-Ray line, which apparently uses a very special glass type. My experience with their skylight filter supports their claim.

 

[DF]

Get a 49-55mm step up ring.

Never thought about step-up rings.
isn't there a question of image degradation due to an increase in 'space' taken up by an 'additional' ring where there'd be the ring from a direct fitting polarizer? (am I making sense?)

 

[MattKing]

Never thought about step-up rings.
isn't there a question of image degradation due to an increase in 'space' taken up by an 'additional' ring where there'd be the ring from a direct fitting polarizer? (am I making sense?)

There are no problems with using a step-up ring outside of:
1) you need a different lens cap;
2) you need a different lens hood;
3) with some cameras, if you use a fitted case, your case may not fit any longer; and, most importantly
4) in some cases - particularly with some wide angle lenses - hanging the combination of the step-up ring nd the filter out in front of the lens can cause the image to vignette at certain apertures.

 

[DREW WILEY]

DF - filters are not "image forming" optics. They're flat. The exact spacing of them when IN FRONT of a lens is not critical, with a few exceptions like graduated center filters, or if there's a way light can enter in between, accentuating flare. The possibility of vignetting is minimized if you use a thin step-up ring and a distinctly oversized filter.

 

[xkaes]

There are no problems with using a step-up ring outside of:
1) you need a different lens cap;
2) you need a different lens hood;
3) with some cameras, if you use a fitted case, your case may not fit any longer; and, most importantly
4) in some cases - particularly with some wide angle lenses - hanging the combination of the step-up ring nd the filter out in front of the lens can cause the image to vignette at certain apertures.

All of this is true, in general, but it might not apply to DF's situation. Even if the Minolta 58mm isn't the only lens for the SRT, the step-up ring can simply be left on the PL filter, and used when needed -- which may not be too often -- so the case for the camera &/or lens may not matter.

And since it's a step-up ring (49-55mm) it will actually help avoid vignetting with those "FAT" polarizers. I have to do that sometimes myself.

 

[Rick A]

Never thought about step-up rings.
isn't there a question of image degradation due to an increase in 'space' taken up by an 'additional' ring where there'd be the ring from a direct fitting polarizer? (am I making sense?)

I own one size of filters to fit my largest lens. I use step up rings on all my other lenses so I don't have a gazillion extra filters. No, they don't degrade the image unless they are dirty.

 

[xkaes]

I own one size of filters to fit my largest lens. I use step up rings on all my other lenses so I don't have a gazillion extra filters.

That's what I do as well, but it doesn't work for everyone -- see Post #28!!!

 

[Rick A]

That's what I do as well, but it doesn't work for everyone -- see Post #28!!!

All I can say to that is "fumble fingers". We all have a moment of clutziness. I inadvertently cross threaded my step up ring on to my polarizer and needed it for my red 25, it took patience and a few minutes, but I freed it without destroying anything.

 

[DF]

I've always heard of step up rings in the 30+ years shooting only film, yet never gave a thought to just what they were/are. Had this not been the case - this here thread of mine would've never been.
'Much indebted for the great advice - not to mention the $$ I'll save from not having to purchase a new polarizer.