Polariser On Wide Angle Lens

danny_bhoy

danny_bhoy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,894
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I've convinced myself that I should really get a polarising filter for landscapes - I'm looking at the Lee Landscape Polariser.

Thing is I've heard varying reports of polarisers causing an unnatural effect at wide angles (I'd be shooting at around 17mm on FF most of the time). Anyone had any experience of this?

Cheers.
 
Yes, its well documented and due to the varying level of polarisation across the sky - some gets darkened much more than other parts. You can use it to nice effect in certain situations but generally not recommended.
 
I got the Lee filter for that very reason when using other polarisers- the Lee filter should be good at 16 mm on a standard filter holder with a wide angle adapter ring- there won't be room for an additional filter on your lens such as a UV at 16 mm. I also have the Lee hood but can't get down to 16 mm using this but you might be ok at 17-18 mm
 
Ned (@Nawty) is correct it can cause banding in the sky, however I rarely use a polariser to make the sky darker. Typically I use them to reduce glare often in shade or when there is no blue sky. I find them a versatile and useful filter, also their effects cannot be replicated in post (yep I know, we should always get it right in camera ...).
 
Nawty said:
Yes, its well documented and due to the varying level of polarisation across the sky - some gets darkened much more than other parts. You can use it to nice effect in certain situations but generally not recommended.
Click to expand...

Canon brook said:
I got the Lee filter for that very reason when using other polarisers- the Lee filter should be good at 16 mm on a standard filter holder with a wide angle adapter ring- there won't be room for an additional filter on your lens such as a UV at 16 mm. I also have the Lee hood but can't get down to 16 mm using this but you might be ok at 17-18 mm
Click to expand...

PaulButler said:
Ned (@Nawty) is correct it can cause banding in the sky, however I rarely use a polariser to make the sky darker. Typically I use them to reduce glare often in shade or when there is no blue sky. I find them a versatile and useful filter, also their effects cannot be replicated in post (yep I know, we should always get it right in camera ...).
Click to expand...

Cheers guys.

I'd be using it mainly to take the glare off water rather than using it to make any sort of difference to the sky - so am I right in thinking that if I rotated it correctly that it would only effect the bottom half of my image (water) and the sky would remain unaffected? Can you tell I've never bothered with a polariser before?! :)
 
No.

The effect on the water is caused by the effect on the sky, it depends on where the reflection is.

Do you have any polarised sun glasses?
 
The polariser will affect the whole scene to some degree. How much effect it has on the sky depends on where the sun is in relation to the lens direction. It is much harder to explain in writing, but dead easy to demonstrate in practise btw ;). If the sun is at right angles to the lens direction you will run the risk of banding in the sky, if there is cloud cover, it isn't an issue though. The effect is also determined by how much "turn" you use on the polariser and these are easily visible in the view finder too.
 
Yes, it's an interesting experience :-)

"In general, the sky is polarized tangential to a circle centered in the sun and maximum polarization is found at ninety degrees from it. Therefore, with the sun close to the zenith the sky will be polarized horizontally along the entire horizon. On the other hand, when the sun is setting West, the sky will be maximally polarized along the meridian and thus vertically at the horizon due North and South."​

From https://www.polarization.com/sky/sky.html.

Bees & some other insects which navigate by means of the sun's position & an internal clock use this to infer the position of the sun when only a few scraps of blue are visible in a cloudy sky. There are gemstones with which you can do this. It is rumoured that the Vikings used that on their sea voyages. Photographically what this means is that an expanse of blue sky, viewed through a polarising filter, will be brightened at one side and darkened at the other, in good bright conditions a lot.

So if there's big expanses of blue sky in your image you probably want to avoid a polarising filter. If there's a small patch you may be able to use a polarising filter to selectively lighten or darken it. If you want to use it to reduce reflected glare from shiny leaves and thereby intensify the colour then use with care while looking at all parts of the image. You may get the effect you want in one part of the image, and its converse in another. The same goes for reducing reflection from water surfaces. Better here, worse there.

I can't give any more detailed advice since after trying it once I decided I'd never put a polariser on a wide angle ever again!
 
Thanks for all of the reply guys. Just to be clear, I've got a full set of grads etc but I've seen a few YouTube videos (particularly Thomas Heaton - check him out, really inspiring) who rave about the effect of polarisers - admittedly at our around 21-35mm.

Think I've heard enough to make me want to keep my cash in my pocket :)
 
You could always buy a cheap Hoya CP that screws directly onto the front of your lens. At least you'll see the effect for yourself and can make a decision if you want to buy the Lee version (which I'm guessing is a lot more expensive just for that three letter word!). I normally use a polariser with 24-70 and 70-200mm lenses, wouldn't be without them, but yes on an ultra wide lens there can be uneven dark areas of sky, but that can work well in some situations
 
Polarisers are an essential bit of kit but as should be used in the right way. do avoid wide skies as it will rarely polarise evenly. however, after 24mm there are quite a few applications in wider views. It's great for cloudy days, detail, water, clouds in skies, etc....

One curious thing I have noticed is this Lee 105mm 'landscape' polariserser http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-lee-105mm-landscape-polarising-filter/p1560442

any idea why it's much cheaper than the standard issue assuming the 'warmth' tint could be removed in PP...?
 
potteringaround said:
Polarisers are an essential bit of kit but as should be used in the right way. do avoid wide skies as it will rarely polarise evenly. however, after 24mm there are quite a few applications in wider views. It's great for cloudy days, detail, water, clouds in skies, etc....

One curious thing I have noticed is this Lee 105mm 'landscape' polariserser http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-lee-105mm-landscape-polarising-filter/p1560442

any idea why it's much cheaper than the standard issue assuming the 'warmth' tint could be removed in PP...?
Click to expand...

Not sure but it's way more expensive than I expected! OP should just get a screw on Hoya for £25 or so
 
Scirocco_09 said:
Not sure but it's way more expensive than I expected! OP should just get a screw on Hoya for £25 or so
Click to expand...

but what if you've just spent £800 on a new lens....? putting a £25 filter on that will defeat the purpose.

And that is why i spend all my money on photography stuff! :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Scirocco_09 said:
Not sure but it's way more expensive than I expected! OP should just get a screw on Hoya for £25 or so
Click to expand...

I suspect the fact that it's 105mm is what makes it expensive rather than the name, other brands are equally pricey. Using a screw on filter behind a filter holder isn't an ideal situation as it can cause vignetting and you'll have to keep adjusting the position. You'll also need to buy a filter for each lens.

As far as using them on WA lenses, I often do, you just need to back them off the full effect a bit.
 
justinminns said:
Using a screw on filter behind a filter holder isn't an ideal situation as it can cause vignetting and you'll have to keep adjusting the position. You'll also need to buy a filter for each lens.
Click to expand...

Not sure if the OP is using a grad system or not, but if he is then that's correct - you wouldn't want to use a screw in polariser behind a filter holder.

My thinking is a screw in version allows him to see how he gets on before spending £170 (+ holder if he doesn't have one). I personally don't use grad filters anymore as my camera pretty much does away with the need (or exposures can be blended if need be), so a screw in version works well for me and saves a bit of cash
 
Scirocco_09 said:
You could always buy a cheap Hoya CP that screws directly onto the front of your lens. At least you'll see the effect for yourself and can make a decision if you want to buy the Lee version (which I'm guessing is a lot more expensive just for that three letter word!). I normally use a polariser with 24-70 and 70-200mm lenses, wouldn't be without them, but yes on an ultra wide lens there can be uneven dark areas of sky, but that can work well in some situations
Click to expand...

potteringaround said:
Polarisers are an essential bit of kit but as should be used in the right way. do avoid wide skies as it will rarely polarise evenly. however, after 24mm there are quite a few applications in wider views. It's great for cloudy days, detail, water, clouds in skies, etc....

One curious thing I have noticed is this Lee 105mm 'landscape' polariserser http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-lee-105mm-landscape-polarising-filter/p1560442

any idea why it's much cheaper than the standard issue assuming the 'warmth' tint could be removed in PP...?
Click to expand...

Scirocco_09 said:
Not sure but it's way more expensive than I expected! OP should just get a screw on Hoya for £25 or so
Click to expand...

potteringaround said:
but what if you've just spent £800 on a new lens....? putting a £25 filter on that will defeat the purpose.

And that is why i spend all my money on photography stuff! :)
Click to expand...

Scirocco_09 said:
Not at all, Hoya are a decent make. I use them (or slightly more expensive versions for larger filter threads - about £30-£40) with £700 and £1700 lenses and the quality is spot on. The word 'Lee' seems to ad an extra £100!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hoya-77-Sli...keywords=hoya+77mm+circular+polarising+filter
Click to expand...

justinminns said:
I suspect the fact that it's 105mm is what makes it expensive rather than the name, other brands are equally pricey. Using a screw on filter behind a filter holder isn't an ideal situation as it can cause vignetting and you'll have to keep adjusting the position. You'll also need to buy a filter for each lens.

As far as using them on WA lenses, I often do, you just need to back them off the full effect a bit.
Click to expand...

Scirocco_09 said:
Not sure if the OP is using a grad system or not, but if he is then that's correct - you wouldn't want to use a screw in polariser behind a filter holder.

My thinking is a screw in version allows him to see how he gets on before spending £170 (+ holder if he doesn't have one). I personally don't use grad filters anymore as my camera pretty much does away with the need (or exposures can be blended if need be), so a screw in version works well for me and saves a bit of cash
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the suggestions guys.

I think what makes the Lee landscape polariser a bit more pricey is that it's slimmer and therefore creates less of a vignette at wide angles - hence being better for landscapes.

I think, however, that I'll be giving it a miss. I shoot wide (17-20mm) most of the time so I don't think I could utilise it to it's full potential.
 
I have a 10-22mm and that needs a very thin polariser - and they are not cheap. I left mine at home on one holiday, bought the only one I could find at the airport and, hey presto, nice 'ring' around the image at the wide end. You do often get a dark vignette at the edges - I think you can rectify this in RAW or PP.
 
danny_bhoy said:
Thanks for all the suggestions guys.

I think what makes the Lee landscape polariser a bit more pricey is that it's slimmer and therefore creates less of a vignette at wide angles - hence being better for landscapes.

I think, however, that I'll be giving it a miss. I shoot wide (17-20mm) most of the time so I don't think I could utilise it to it's full potential.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately its a compromise when shooting wide angle - they will create a unnatural looking sky, but theres also no other way to reduce glare on water.

I've not read the whole thread, but if cost is a factor (in terms of getting good usage/value for money), then consider a Lee 100mm square polariser. Slots into the filter holder, so you rotate it in 90 degree increments, which has always been sufficient for me. Also works fine with wide angles (there may be issues if you need to add a third slot to the filter holder, but that goes for any filter on the Lee system)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top