Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: multi-coated polarizers -worth the cost?  (Read 9387 times)
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1044


« on: March 09, 2008, 08:09:45 PM »
ReplyReply

there's about a 50% premium for the b+w multi-coated polarizer

i've been happy with my standard coated b+w polarizers - am i missing something?
Logged
witz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2008, 08:14:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
there's about a 50% premium for the b+w multi-coated polarizer

i've been happy with my standard coated b+w polarizers - am i missing something?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


There is a chance that the MC will cut down on internal reflections between the filter and the lens..... might be worth the money. But... a good matte box ( lens filter ) will do almost as well ( but not quite )

I know a photographer that actually has had some of his lens' "flocked" around thee outside front element to reduce flair....
Logged
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2008, 07:21:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm suspect of the benefit.  First, a polarizer works 90 degrees from the sun.  I think it would be a rare situation to need a polarizer when there are concerns of flare from the sun.

Perhaps flare from other objects reflecting the sun, like a car or some other metallic object.  I just don't run into a situation like that often enough to warrant a coated polarizer.  Actually I have one from Hoya, but never use it.
Logged

Jonathan Ratzlaff
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2008, 11:12:47 PM »
ReplyReply

While it is true that the maxiim effect for darkening skies is at a 90 degree angle to the sun, the main reason that a polarizer is used is to control reflections.  There are many times a polarizer is used when flare can be a problem so multi-coating can be helpful in this situation.  You can still get flare from a multi-coated lens so the best thing to do is to shade the lens as much as possible.  I find that collapsible reflectors are more suitable for that purpose than lens hoods

That said, my polarizers are not multi-coated and they do not have more reflections than normal.  The main thing to remember is to use as few filters as possible.  That means that if you have a skylight filter to protect the front of the lens, remove it when using a polarizing filter.
Logged
kshuler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2008, 03:12:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, multicoating does matter to a significant extent in terms of flare.  Look at the following website:

http://www.optyczne.pl/5.1-Inne_testy-Test_filtrów_UV.html

Unfortunately, it is in Polish, however, the graphs are very easy to understand and the pictures are worth a thousand words.  You can see that for every brand, the amount of flare in each image is distinctly different between the non multicoated versions and the multicoated versions.

Of course, no filter at all is best for flare.  And I don't see why these results shouldn't be reproducible in polarizing filters, either.

Just a thought.

Klaus
--
http://bokehtests.com/Site/About_Bokeh.html
Logged
sabatia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2008, 09:25:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been shooting landscape and nature photos for thirty years and find that the one filter that I always carry is a circular polarizer. I use it a lot on landscape shots. I also love sometimes having the luxury to shoot wildlife with the cp on.

I have found that multi-coated filters are much less likely to cause a shot to lose vibrancy(color/contrast/sharpness) due to subtle internal and external reflections. I believe that this is even more likely with digital sensors. Remember that in a circular polarizer there are four surfaces to cause reflection.

Yup, they cost a little more--and I am not rich. But once you've spent thousands of dollars on lenses and cameras and money for printers, paper, and ink, why not spend a few bucks more and have another set of excellent tools. I have found the Hoya hmc digital pro series to be very good--both in terms of reflection but also having a narrow non-vignetting ring that also importantly for convenience still can take the lense cap. Also had good luck with Heliopan and b+w. One further advantage of the better quality filters: the polarizing material is in the glass and won't delaminate, which is a problem at the lower end.
Logged
jeremydillon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2008, 06:51:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Are we better off with a linear polarizer?
I find that my 1Ds III focuses fine shooting through one of these and I'm assuming that having less between the lens and the subject can only be a good thing.
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2008, 07:09:07 PM »
ReplyReply

The Nikon Polarizer II is the best circular polarizer I've used.  Slim design, Nikon multicoat, not too "cool," and it allows in around 2/3 stop more light than nearly any other.  I've used B+W, Hoya, Tiffen, etc, and these Nikons are the best IMO.....and I'm not a Nikon shooter btw.  
Logged
theophilus
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2008, 07:41:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I use a Rodenstock HR CPL and it is great - very well made with a brass ring (coated black) instead of plastic.  

I had a Hoya fall apart on me, which is a well-documented issue.
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2008, 08:44:59 PM »
ReplyReply

That Polish testing site is great, Klaus; it answered longstanding questions for me.  My takaway:

(1) The newer Hoya "Pro1 Digital MC" series is at least as good as the older "Super HMC."  (Although, come to think about it, my Hoya filter packages are labeled "Super HMC Pro1," which I believe means that they have the same coatings as the "Super HMC" but are thinner for less likelihood of vignetting.)
    (I had heard rumors that the newer Pro1 Digital MCs were not as good as the older "Super HMC" models.)

(2) The Kenko "Pro1 D" filters seem to have flare characteristics about equal to the Hoya Pro1 Digital MC, but are priced much lower in the US.  Kenko and Hoya are owned by the same company, and I have read that these are "corporate twins."  However, I note that the Polish review has some caveat at the bottom (unreadable by non Polish-fluent souls like me) that causes the scores to appear in red.

(3) The German B+W and Heliopan filters appear to be a very bad bargain for the money.  Lots of extra cash for little or no additional benefit in flare and transmissivity characteristics.  (However the frames are brass rather than aluminum.)

Anyway, these filter companies are very cryptic in their naming conventions and in the technical material on their websites.  So, the Polish testing read was valuable for me.

Bruce
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2008, 08:55:03 PM »
ReplyReply

P.S.  I order by filters from Hong Kong-based HVStar at:

http://hvstar.net/

They take about three days to ship out an order via "Hong Kong Post," (Express Mail) plus about 5-7 days to arrive at my office.  However, the cost is less than one-half of U.S. retail.  So, it is easy to save several hundred dollars if you order a few filters.  (It is not worthwhile for one filter because of the shipping cost.)

I have specifically asked if they are selling factory seconds and they affirm that they are not.

They sell Hoya, Kenko, and B+W.

Ask for "Yolanda."
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2008, 08:01:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(3) The German B+W and Heliopan filters appear to be a very bad bargain for the money.  Lots of extra cash for little or no additional benefit in flare and transmissivity characteristics.  (However the frames are brass rather than aluminum.)

The B+W MRC coatings are much easier to clean than the Hoya ones  (In particular the S-HMC.) and, in my experience, seem to be more durable.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 08:01:48 AM by DarkPenguin » Logged
jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2008, 10:34:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are we better off with a linear polarizer?

A while back, I compared a B+W Top Pol (linear) against a new B+W Circular. The linear seemed to have a bit more "oomph", but my tests were not highly controlled.

Also, given the fact that ones lenses and filters are often sold off when no longer needed, a circular polarizer will have more potential buyers, where-as a linear one will be like a dog to sell.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 10:35:10 AM by jjlphoto » Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad