srt101fan

I'm also in need of a CPL filter and am very interested in comments from experienced users. Has anyone else had this problem with some filters being too hard to turn? My other concern is the strongly held opinions by some in the thread I referenced earlier that you don't need to go to high-cost CPLs, the cheaper ones are just as good.....

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Personally prefer Hoya for digital protectors, UVs, and CPLs. They have never disappointed me. You'll get a lot of opinions on whether to use CPLs (or any filter for that matter) or not. I find them very helpful in certain circumstances where there are a lot of reflections like around water or shooting through glass. Bright reflections off water can fool your camera's light meter to under expose the shot. For ND, graduated filters and special effects filters, I use Lee.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

If you are responding to my reply to the OP, that wasn't my question. It was "are you saying that a lower-cost polarizer doesn't perform its basic function as well as a high-priced one?"

By the way, UHH apparently thinks "UHH" and "polarizer" are misspellings. Funny, huh? :-)

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Usually, you can recreate a deep blue sky with contrasty clouds just with Lightroom. But you cannot truly duplicate a polarized effect. You mention it reduces reflection (read: glare), and it does -- but most of us seek that. Moreover, it removes reflections in bodies of water, allowing us to see the bottom, which is something no post-process allows.

There is certainly a place for polarizers.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

B+W CPL filters are actually among the least expensive of the high quality circular polarizers. There are four grades of B+W filters, with XS-Pro being the most expensive and most high-end (primarily, 16-layer "Nano" multi-coatings and a slim frame). Their F-Pro is one step down (8-layer multi-coatings and a "standard" frame instead of slim). Their "MRC" is another step down (not "high transmissive", not "Kaesemann and not weather-sealed). Their least expensive is "SC" or "single coated". They all use Schott glass and they all use brass frames. Compare to similar specification filters. Or even to some that are lower specification.... You can spend a lot more, but get less! The most comparable to XS-Pro are underlined below:

72mm B+W X-Pro Kaesemann CPL: 16-layer "Nano" multi-coatings, Schott glass, "high transmissive", slim brass frame, weather sealed.... $87.

72mm Hoya NXT CPL: 10-layer multi-coatings, "clear" glass, slim aluminum frame... $95.

72mm Manfrotto Professional CPL: 12-layer multi-coatings, unknown glass and frame... $115.

72mm Tiffen Digital HT filter: unknown multi-coatings, Colorcore glass, "high transmissive", titanium frame... $123.

72mm Nikon II CPL: unspecified multi-coatings, unknown glass, slim frame... $125.

72mm Breakthrough X4 CPL: 16-layer "Nano" multi-coatings, Schott glass, knurled titanium frame, weather sealed... $139.

Benro Master Series SHD CPL : "Nano" multi-coatings, Schott glass, slim brass frame... $140.

72mm Marumi DHG Super CPL: "Nano" multi-coatings, unspecified "optical" glass, slim aluminum frame (Teflon coated threads).... $150.

72mm Zeiss T* CPL: "anti-reflective coating" (singular), "high quality" glass, slim frame... $158.

72mm Heliopan SH-PMC Slim CPL: 16-layer "Nano" multi-coatings, Schott glass, "high transmissive", slim brass frame, weather sealed... $172.

72mm Rodenstock HR Digital CPL: 16-layer "Nano" multi-coatings, "optical" glass, slim aluminum frame... $174.

72mm Hoya HD3 CPL: 16-layer Nano multi-coatings, "optical" glass, slim aluminum frame.... $175.

B+W XS-Pro and F-Pro CPL are both "high transmissive". This means they are lighter gray toned and there's less light lost to them than to the traditional, darker CPL. The light lost to standard CPL is typically between 1.25 and 2.25 stops, depending upon the setting. Lighter toned HT CPL "cost" between approx. .75 and 1.5 stops of light, depending upon the setting. Some of the other brands are also indicated to be HT... others appear that they might be, but don't specify.

B+W XS-Pro and F-Pro also are "Kaesemann", which means they have additional edge sealing for weather resistance and that they use what's described as a "finer" polarizing foil. (Personally, I can't see the difference between that and what B+W uses in other "lesser" CPL. AFAIK, only Heliopan has also used the "Kaesemann" designation.)

Schott glass that's used in all B+W and some of the other filters mentioned here is well-respected for its quality. Some of the other optical glass may be equal. But it's hard to say when it's not specified at all.

B+W use brass frames... both their "standard" (which is already pretty slim) and the "slim" version used in the XS-Pro. Brass is less prone to "galling" and getting stuck on lenses or to other filters. Marumi uses Teflon coatings on the threads of their aluminum filters for the same reason. Aluminum can be the worst for galling, but coatings such as Marumi uses may help a lot. I don't know how filters using other materials such as titanium compare (I do know that titanium is light weight like aluminum, but less rigid.)

B+W XS-Pro use 16-layer "Nano" multi-coatings (as do some of the other filters). These are more scratch, oil and water resistant than "lesser" coatings. They're also more easily cleaned. 8-layer multi-coating reduces reflections and improves light transmission too, but isn't as durable as "Nano" coatings. Single or uncoated filters might be fine for indoor use, in highly controlled lighting conditions. But for general purpose and outdoor use under a wide variety of conditions, multi-coated filters are recommended.

There are a lot to choose among... The above list is far from complete. But for the money, B+W are hard to beat. The closest to B+W quality I found for less money was Format-Hitech Firecrest Superslim CPL on sale for $58 in 72mm size (about 50% off reg. price). However, those filters do not have front threads, which means that they cannot be fitted with a standard protective lens cap or have another filter stacked atop them. I left them off the above list for that reason. The Firecrest filter also uses an aluminum ring, instead of brass.

Sometimes still available new, Nikon filters prior to the "II" series (mentioned above) are uncoated. So are Canon filters. Probably neither are actually made by the camera & lens manufacturers, but are outsourced from one of the filter manufacturers... perhaps Kenko/Hoya (just guessing). This is very likely true of other camera & lens branded filters, too. Why go to all the expense to set up to manufacture something when you can just buy it in bulk from someone else and have your name imprinted on it? (The same is true of memory cards, batteries, tripods and more.) People will buy it just because the brand name is the same as their camera and lens, so practically anything goes as far as pricing. An uncoated Canon CPL in 72mm size sells for $164! It's probably about the same as an uncoated, moderate quality Hoya CPL that sells for $55.

In the end, B+W CPL filters are a great value. With their XS-Pro and F-Pro, in particular, you get a lot of filter for significantly less money than virtually any other brand that comes close to having all the same qualities.

Finally, B+W's other types of filters... Neutral Density, UV, etc.... aren't as favorably priced as their CPL. While good quality and not a bad value at all, they are priced more similarly to other brands with reasonably comparable quality.

EDIT: Someone suggested buying a larger diameter filter and using it with a step-down ring. The problem with doing that is that on most lenses you can no longer use the lens hood when an oversize filter is fitted. The hood is important (even if a bit inconvenient, when using filter like a CPL that you adjust by turning). I recommend just buying the correct size for your lens.... and using your lens hood with it regardless (it also protects the filter from bumps and breakage).

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Well said, Rick. I added a reply before I read yours -- and I would not have had I read yours first.

I might add that using the HSL in Lightroom is a pretty easy way to create a sky indistinguishable from the effect a CPL offers. This is especially handy for images shot with a wide where a CPL causes an unevenly polarized sky.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

I noticed this filter is also available on Amazon for a couple bucks less: https://www.amazon.com/Kaesemann-Circular-Polarizer-Multi-Resistant-Coating/dp/B00PH4HT9Y/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?keywords=B%2BW+72mm+XS-Pro+HTC+Kaesemann+Circular+Polarizer+with+Multi-Resistant+Nano+Coating&qid=1555779751&s=gateway&sr=8-2-fkmr1

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

Look at Breakthrough filters. They are as good as any and easier to use.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

That's what I use and am quite satisfied.

rydabyk Loc: Florida Panhandle

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Thanks so much for the comprehensive overview Alan - I learn something every time you post.

markwilliam1

I personally think a CPF is indispensable for Landscape photography! There is no way you can duplicate the polarizers effect using post processing that I’ve found.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

90% of my filters are B+W. I'm having difficulty finding the few I have left to replace. As I do, they, too, will be replaced with B+W.
--Bob

Kalina54 Loc: Flagstaff, AZ

This might be a silly thing to tell you but make certain that you rotate the polarizer for the desired effect and it will only be effective when the sun is at least 90 degrees.

Haydon

What lenses will you be using for will it be used on a crop or full frame camera? Careful use is necessary below 20 mm on a FF otherwise you can get uneven skies with a CPL. I don't cheap out on filters or glass. I use B+W nano. I have no issues at 24 mm. Below that I use a GND if I'm including skies. Your mileage may vary.