Polarising filter advice

juancarlos66

juancarlos66

Suspended / Banned
Messages
469
Name
Christian
Edit My Images
No
I am looking to buy a Hoya Pro 1 52mm polarising filter but am a bit confused over pricing.

They seem to range from £32 to £72 !! for the same product, how can that be :bang:
 
You have Pro1, Pro1 HMC and Pro1 SHMC... and probably further variants?

Go for the most expensive! :D


Or have a look at the Marumi DHG Super...
 
Are the Marumi as good as Hoya ?
 
Hi, Buy the best you can afford. IMO filters are like lenses you get what you pay for.
Also remember that you put a £500 lens on your camera for a reason 'Quality' so why put a £10 filter on the front?
Lastly look at http://www.hoyafilter.com/
Russ
 
?
 
Last edited:
juancarlos66 said:
I am looking to buy a Hoya Pro 1 52mm polarising filter but am a bit confused over pricing.

They seem to range from £32 to £72 !! for the same product, how can that be :bang:
Click to expand...

They're not the same products, having bought a Hoya polarizing filter myself, I also found the range very confusing. What you have to watch is that online retailers use the correct wording in their descriptions and the correct image. Remember the people listing the products probably have less clue than you do.
 
Jan K. said:
Erhm... why "?" ?
You asked and the test/review from a highly reputable online photo site claims Marumi is at the absolute top... :thumbs:

But maybe I misread your "?" ? :D
Click to expand...

Sorry Jan I misread your post so edited my post :)

Thanks for the info, I will have a look at the Marumi as well as hoya.
 
Ah! Thank you! :thumbs:

Just wanted to mention the Marumi since I'm the same situation as you, and a friend highly recommended the Marumi.

Whichever you choose, it is a winner, but go as expensive as you can.
 
Jan K. said:
Ah! Thank you! :thumbs:

Just wanted to mention the Marumi since I'm the same situation as you, and a friend highly recommended the Marumi.

Whichever you choose, it is a winner, but go as expensive as you can.
Click to expand...

i got my Marumi super DHG 77mm CPL second hand from ffordes for around £30.
an absolute bargain!
Brilliant quality all round.
B+W also excellent, but a lot more expensive.
I also had a Sigma EX DG CPL filter which although didn't come out as one of the best in the test, i found to be excellent also.
 
I'm new here, so be gentle...

Hope it's not too late to add to this debate but I've been looking at the lenstip.com test that so many people refer to and find myself drawn to the B+W filters simply because of the almost complete lack of additional flare around the lamps in the test photos, which is very evident with the winning Marumi - green flying saucers. This seems more noticeable than any other factor that would affect my choice and is fairly consistent across their range which leads to the cheaper C-POL MRC, non-slim [no annoying lens cap problems] non-KSM [simply for cost, as it's going on a pretty cheap lens anyway, though it does show even less flare than its cheaper sibling.] Have I got my priorties all wrong? Even this cheapest B+W has a brass mount - though some websites say it doesn't? - and the hard, protective coating, and apparently doesn't fall apart as regularly as the Hoya HD, which was my initial instinctive choice, all of which sound like plus points. Perhaps it's too good for my kit - many of you have equipment I could only dream of - but I hope I'll only ever buy the one. As it's only 55mm it's not too pricey, just a couple of quid more than the Marumi though quite a bit more than the Hoya HD. Does anyone out there think this is a reasonable conclusion?

One further query; some of the transmission plots for these filters, including Hoya's own, show that they start cutting well inside the visible part of the spectrum, which I believe starts at about 370-380nm. The Hoya HD's plot is down to virtually 0% by then having started falling at about 450nm, well into the blue, meaning, surely, that any violets, purples, dark blues and so on will be dramatically darkened. Doesn't this cause problems, or is this end of the spectrum somehow unimportant? If I tried to photograph Deep Purple in concert, would they disappear? Just kidding, but how can it be right to cut out so much of that end of the spectrum, or have I got it all wrong again?

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to TP :)

I wouldn't take too much notice of those LensTip.com reviews. Too much pseudo-science and not enough practical understanding.

In reality, there is zero difference between filters in terms of polarising ability. The differences are in the coatings, density, and the mount.

For example, LensTip fails to even mention the most significant difference between the Hoya HD and most others - it has an overall density of 1.2 stops, compared to 1.7-1.9. Their flare test is not very reliable either, and the Hoya HD tested in a snow scene is, well, useless as a comparison.

Multi-coating is better than single coating (though not by that much) which is significantly better than no coating at all. Then there are the tougher resistant coatings - easier to clean and won't mark if you get them wet, eg Hoya HD, B+W MRC, Marumi Super DHG.

I'd be very happy with any of those, but use use Hoya HD for benefit of an extra half stop of transmission.
 
Many thanks for your reply. The extra 'speed' of the Hoya was certainly a big attraction and Hoya were the go-to filters in a previous life - I've taken a long, long break from photography and just bought my very first digital camera. I could see myself leaving it on most of the time, especialy as it's meant to double as a UV filter.

"The differences are in the coatings, density, and the mount" - for me that would make the B+W the winner by two to one, but perhaps "density" is worth two points, unless the Hoya mount comes apart. Actually I'd have thought that if you check it every now and then you'd spot whether it was coming loose before anything drastic happened. I did think seeing a photo taken with each filter was worth a lot of words, and the B+Ws, notably the top of the range job, still strike me as better than the others. I shall continue to ponder.
 
Last edited:
jimmytheone said:
Many thanks for your reply. The extra 'speed' of the Hoya was certainly a big attraction and Hoya were the go-to filters in a previous life - I've taken a long, long break from photography and just bought my very first digital camera. I could see myself leaving it on most of the time, especialy as it's meant to double as a UV filter.

"The differences are in the coatings, density, and the mount" - for me that would make the B+W the winner by two to one, but perhaps "density" is worth two points, unless the Hoya mount comes apart. Actually I'd have thought that if you check it every now and then you'd spot whether it was coming loose before anything drastic happened. I did think seeing a photo taken with each filter was worth a lot of words, and the B+Ws, notably the top of the range job, still strike me as better than the others. I shall continue to ponder.
Click to expand...

Don't ponder too much, any of those top grade filters I mentioned will be absolutely fine. The Hoya HD will only pop apart if you drop it and it lands awkwardly, when the mount might flex fractionally and the retaining spring-ring come adrift. In which case, pop it back in. Most of the very light weight filters with slim mounts can do that.

Polarisers are not normally left on, though I have mine mostly on my super-wide than off. And you don't need a UV filter as all digital sensors have a UV filter over them. They're only for protection, but my advice is to leave them off unless protection is really needed, eg sea spray, as even the best ones can degrade image quality in some situations (flare and ghosting mainly). Always use a lens hood - best protection you can get, as well as potentially improved image quality.
 
Thanks again. I'm sure you're both right in that any of the better ones will prove more than a match for my lenses and I'm worrying unnecessarily, and I certainly wouldn't buy an uncoated filter; I remember wearing uncoated spectacles and spending much of the time looking at reflections of reflections in my eyeballs. I do have a cheap alternative, spend a couple of quid on a step-up ring and use my old Hoya HMC linear pl and see whether it really does mess up exposure and/or focus. If I can remove the dust of ages from its surfaces.
 
Last edited:
jimmytheone said:
Thanks again. I'm sure you're both right in that any of the better ones will prove more than a match for my lenses and I'm worrying unnecessarily, and I certainly wouldn't buy an uncoated filter; I remember wearing uncoated spectacles and spending much of the time looking at reflections of reflections in my eyeballs. I do have a cheap alternative, spend a couple of quid on a step-up ring and use my old Hoya HMC linear pl and see whether it really does mess up exposure and/or focus. If I can remove the dust of ages from its surfaces.
Click to expand...

Well worth a try. You may get some minor issues, and cameras vary, but a lot of users find a linear polariser works okay.

BTW, if you fancy selling your old Hoya, I could use a linear polariser. You'd need to play by the rules and put it in the classified section - when you quality for access to that. If you do, I'd appreciate a PM to let me know :)
 
I think it's worth trying the old filter first - could save £50! I'll bear you in mind if it doesn't work out.
 
I don't use filters much any more (except on lighting) but I still use polarisers. I've only ever bought B+W filters.

Why? Optically they wipe the floor with other filters. Stop looking at numbers when testing stuff.. look at results instead. Yeah, numerically, that Marumi filter seems to do as well as the B+W, but look at the flare images. Tell me, given a choice, you'd still use the Marumi?

No polariser
ZIfijJ5.jpg


with B+W polariser
1G3UtQO.jpg


with Marumi Polariser.
slh3yhX.jpg


You get what you pay for. I don't know about you, but if I'd paid £1500 for a lens, I'd want nothing but the absolute best performance from it, and sticking a filter prone to flare on it seems like a really bad idea.

I cam to this conclusion myself, years ago by testing. Hoya SMC and all the others were junk in comparison. Only B+W seemed to be "transparent" in use.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead - You're thinking the same as me. The flare in the photos means more to me than the slight variations between some of the graphs, and I'd have given it more weight in the rankings. Mind you, having tried to understand the plots, the B+Ws appear to be less efficient than some others at being a polariser with quite a rise in the plot in the blue/violet range. Maybe that would be a problem for critical/technical work but for most situations, landscapes and the like, I used to find myself cranking down the polarising effect as to my eyes it looks unnatural if you take it too far. And I'm still puzzled, though presumably it can't really be a problem or it would be reported, that the Hoya cuts out so much of that end of the spectrum, surely it's enough to alter the colour balance. As I said, IF I really do understand the plots - how can some of them show readings below zero transmission?

I'm afraid my lenses cost very much less than £1500, in fact some of these filters cost more! so while I don't want to knowingly make them any worse there's a point where spending too much on a filter would not be sensible. I quite agree that a professional would be stupid to compromise their work by using a cheap filter - a chain is only as strong as its weakest link - but it's just a hobby for me.
 
I've tested many of the polarisers on the LensTip website, including a flare test (rather more controlled than theirs) though I wouldn't try and pick too many holes in their method as presented there as they appear to be taken at the same time/conditions. Just that my findings for the Marumi Super DHG were way better than that and it was one of the very best for flare.

Agree with Pooks though that the best polariser I tested for flare resistance was the B+W MRC, if only by the smallest margin. I've tested other B+W MRC filters too and they're consistently excellent.

I also spent a huge amount of time trying to find differences in sheer polarising ability with different light, at different angles, on all kinds of subjects and colours, both natural (fruit/peppers/flowers) and artificial (printed ink colours). Also linear vs circular. I could find zero difference between any of them on that score. Though if you take polarising ability to the limit, you do get slightly different hues on very bright reflections extinction, with some turning the reflection blue/purple and others, notably Hoya HD and others with the lighter tone, turning dark brown. Subjectively, I prefered the latter.
 
I don't suppose this is scientific enough to be of much use but I just tried out my old linear pf and found that though the camera seemed to focus just as happily with or without it - even with one subject that it had probelms focusing on at all, being nearly all reflection - it did feel the need to alter the focus slightly whenever the filter was on, actually just held against the lens as it's the wrong size. Take it away and the camera focused back to where it was before. So the filter does cause the camera the adjust focus, and presumably put the image out of focus??

On one particular set of shots of an 18% grey + white balance card with the corner of my shiny laptop infront, with the auto white balance turned off and the aperture wide open, but everything else on auto, three shots, without the filter, with it turned to max effect on the laptop and then to min effect. The camera settled on 1/125, 1/80 [though with the bright reflections killed this was actually the darker subject] and 1/60 respectively The two shots with were very noticeably greener/yellower, at least half a stop dark, and seemed a bit lacking in contrast but perhaps that's just the underexposure. The camera clearly wasn't giving the 1.5-2 stops extra exposure I'd expected. Impossible to draw any conclusions about the focus, other than as far as the camera is concerned it changes, as I was having to hold the filter to the lens so it wasn't rock steady.

Anyway, as I said, unscientific, but it's very far from a case of "the same image minus reflections" - the filter affects focus, exposure accuracy and colour balance. I'll go and play with some real world subjects but perhaps those who say some cameras don't agree with LPFs were right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top